Learn from Bethesda? lol
Bethesda only makesopen worldopen theme park garbage. Fallout 4 is their worst game yet.
If you seriously think Fallout 4 is in any way worse than either Oblivion or Fallout 3, you officially have the worst taste of any human being that has ever lived on this planet.
If you seriously think Fallout 4 is in any way worse than either Oblivion or Fallout 3, you officially have the worst taste of any human being that has ever lived on this planet.
Except you are wrong. Just check the user ratings on Steam and elsewhere.
But all of Bethesda games are crap anyway, so who cares.
If you seriously think Fallout 4 is in any way worse than either Oblivion or Fallout 3, you officially have the worst taste of any human being that has ever lived on this planet.
fallout 3 was the worst one.
fallout 3 was the worst one.
Kind of hard to think of anything it does better, that's for sure.
I suppose the green filter had a charm. An ugly, 'realism is dirt' sort of charm, along with poor lighting all around, but it certainly felt post-nuclear apocalyptic.
Pity it took place 200 years after the war, and not 20.
What makes it better (worse?) is that bullets make better currency than caps. Instead of Cap Collector, it's always better to get scrounger for ammo. Not only does it keep you supplied in the Wasteland, but you both save money in buying the ammo and can make money in selling your massive, weightless stockpiles. Depending on the caliber, one bullet can be several caps each.
On perks, though- another great perk combo is with 'shotgun' weapons. Same principle applies of every round having hte effect, but
Last game, which I just finished, I got a Legendary Wounding Institute Rifle, which did wounding damage every hit. Slap on the shotgun mod, and the burning energy weapon effect, and I had a rapid-fire shotgun which did both wounding and burning damage with each blow. I took out the Mirelurk Queen at the Castle before she hit shore.
I am currently having fun with a Luck-based build, using only pistols. Was fairly weak at the beginning, but the Luck tree has some of the best perks in the game, Ricochet is both useful and funny and Four Leaf Clover + Better Criticals + Kelogg's magnum = mayhem.
I'll give them that, the perk system is flexible enough to allow for build variety, more than in FO3 for sure. It's a shame this flexibility doesn't extend to non-combat skills, but on that level Bethesda stepped up their game.
So, don't give one a Fat Man and a mini nuke?
Just found this out myself, but-
Nukes, rockets, and grenades have a special tag in the code that says 'use by NPC'- ie, they'll be used up. Unlike other ammo types, which non-companion NPCs won't use, give a settler a fat man and a mini-nuke and you'll get one nuke out of it..
I also read that for miniguns, you need to give enough ammo for it to spool up. Not sure if there was an amount- 25?- but otherwise it wouldn't work right or something.
Probably the best weapon to exploit this with is plasma- take those plasma pistols you can get gunners, spread them around, and just one plasma round each.
This has the additional bonus of how plasma kills have a chance to add nuclear material to the loot. If they gooify, there's a good chance to find it.
Except you are wrong. Just check the user ratings on Steam and elsewhere.
Except you are wrong, if you're gonna go by Steam user ratings, Bethesda's worst game is TESO, with 76% to Fallout 4's 81%. Or are you going to move the goalposts and say it doesn't count because it's an MMO?
Fallout 4 is far from a perfect game, but it's nowhere near the worst game Bethesda has made.
Fallout 4 is far from a perfect game, but it's nowhere near the worst game Bethesda has made.
Fallout 4 is worse than Fallout 3 because it has way less rpg content, which is saying an abominable lot.
Fallout 4 is worse than Fallout 3 because it has way less rpg content, which is saying an abominable lot.
On the other hand, gameplay is much better, and also the story and characters.
Personally, I didn't find the change from skills to perks to be that bad, in essence the system is similar, just less fiddly.
As for choices, FO:NV was superior to both FO3 & FO4.
Fallout 2> Fallout New Vegas->Fallout 1 -> Fallout 4-> Fallout 3 // Obsidian>Bethesda
Except you are wrong, if you're gonna go by Steam user ratings, Bethesda's worst game is TESO, with 76% to Fallout 4's 81%. Or are you going to move the goalposts and say it doesn't count because it's an MMO?
Fallout 4 is far from a perfect game, but it's nowhere near the worst game Bethesda has made.
Uh oh, mad Fallout 4 fan detected. No need to get mad because you like to play Bethesda's action open world open theme park drivel.
Anyway, you just said that Fallout 3 and Oblivion are worse than Fallout 4, although the general consensus says that YOU are wrong. How can that make me wrong although I have stated the complete opposite? Is it just too hard for you to grasp such a simple concept or something? ^^
No idea why you are even bringing up MMOs anyway, because they are a completely different genre. But fine then, have it your way: Fallout 4 = worst Bethesda single player game to date.... And now you are going to try and prove me wrong by stating that Home Alone on the NES or Pirates of the Caribbean was actually Bethesda's worst game, just so nobody can say that Fallout 4 is Bethesda's biggest POS to date... amirite? ^^
Bethesda`s contribution to the genre was forcing everyone to include an open world. Sorta how BW went down the path of fully voiced over cinematics and pretty much everyone not indie had to follow.
Going forward any RPG that's in the old KOTOR/ME2 mold will get flack for being a tunnel hand held experience. It's been happening for a while now, I remember Arcania got shreded to bits by a lot of folks. And heck, can't fault the flak in a way, technology has advanced, stage prop towns just don't cut it anymore.
It can be claimed DA:I didn't make the transformation elegantly enough but Witcher 3 demonstrated how a narration heavy franchise can evolve down those lines and improve as a result.
Except you are wrong, if you're gonna go by Steam user ratings, Bethesda's worst game is TESO, with 76% to Fallout 4's 81%. Or are you going to move the goalposts and say it doesn't count because it's an MMO?
Fallout 4 is far from a perfect game, but it's nowhere near the worst game Bethesda has made.
To be fair TESO wasn't developed by Bethesda Game Studios, which is the actual company behind the normal Elder Scrolls games and Fallout 3/4.
but then, trying to use public opinion as a way of saying an individual's opinion is right or wrong is stupid anyway and people should feel stupid for even bringing it up.
I think Fallout 4 is better than 3 and the entire world can feel free to disagree with me, that still doesn't make me wrong. That's not how opinions work.
Bethesda`s contribution to the genre was forcing everyone to include an open world. Sorta how BW went down the path of fully voiced over cinematics and pretty much everyone not indie had to follow.
Going forward any RPG that's in the old KOTOR/ME2 mold will get flack for being a tunnel hand held experience. It's been happening for a while now, I remember Arcania got shreded to bits by a lot of folks. And heck, can't fault the flak in a way, technology has advanced, stage prop towns just don't cut it anymore.
It can be claimed DA:I didn't make the transformation elegantly enough but Witcher 3 demonstrated how a narration heavy franchise can evolve down those lines and improve as a result.
Did it really? TW3 was a great game and adopted a lot from successful open world games ala AC, but I'm not sure I'd say it was better than TW2 from a narrative POV.
My opinion is based on my personal taste for RPGs, and to see a Fallout with evanescent rpg content is a kick in the balls (or a punch in the stomach, if you like). So I'd like to say that, considering Fallout as an RPG saga, the 4th is the worst since it fails on the main genre it should be focused on, by the absurd claims of who's selling it.
Did it really? TW3 was a great game and adopted a lot from successful open world games ala AC, but I'm not sure I'd say it was better than TW2 from a narrative POV.
it certainly managed to be more narratively focused than DA:I
it certainly managed to be more narratively focused than DA:I
well considering this has pretty much turned into wither or not you like bethesda games or not.
the only thinkg Bio needs to learn from Fallout4 is that, while openworld is fine, overdoing it is a big nono. LIke say DA:I Halfway though the game i just said F it, and did the main story. Yea its fun to explore but, it just takes too long. While yes they gave us a mount, but they made it so you don't here banter. And you can blast past things suddenly and even miss convos and stuff because of it.
Uh oh, mad Fallout 4 fan detected. No need to get mad because you like to play Bethesda's action
open worldopen theme park drivel.
I actually like Fallout: New Vegas considerably more than Fallout 4, I just like 4 a whole lot more than 3 because 3 was a f***ing insult to oldtime Fallout fans in many, many regards.
Anyway, you just said that Fallout 3 and Oblivion are worse than Fallout 4, although the general consensus says that YOU are wrong.
First of all, I have never, ever heard anyone use Steam reviews as a serious measurement of quality before. Never.
Secondly, Oblivion and Fallout 3 are worse from a technical and narrative standpoint. It doesn't matter if it has 100% approval on Steam, it's objectively worse purely from how the game plays.
How can that make me wrong although I have stated the complete opposite? Is it just too hard for you to grasp such a simple concept or something? ^^
You are trying to sell your subjective, sour opinion of something as objective by referring to the subjective, sour opinions of other people. From STEAM, of all places, which allows users to make entirely arbitrary joke reviews at their leisure.
It's completely irrelevant anyway because Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 has the same Steam score, 81%. Are they both equally the the worst Bethesda game because they have the same score? They have to be, since you're holding Steam up as the big measurement of quality here.
No idea why you are even bringing up MMOs anyway, because they are a completely different genre. But fine then, have it your way: Fallout 4 = worst Bethesda single player game to date.... And now you are going to try and prove me wrong by stating that Home Alone on the NES or Pirates of the Caribbean was actually Bethesda's worst game, just so nobody can say that Fallout 4 is Bethesda's biggest POS to date... amirite? ^^
No, I am going to repeat myself and say that both Oblivion and Fallout 3 are objectively worse than Fallout 4 from technical and narrative standpoints, regardless of people's personal opinions. Even my personal favorite among the Fallout games, New Vegas, is vastly inferior to Fallout 4 purely from a technical standpoint. This isn't my opinion, it's objective fact. I still like New Vegas better, because it's narrative, dialogue and decision making is vastly superior.
As an example of technical shortcomings, Fallout 3, Oblivion and New Vegas were all incredibly bug-ridden on launch, requiring multiple patches to make the games playable for extended periods of time without crashing. Fallout 4 wasn't a bug-ridden mess at launch. In that respect alone, it's a way better game than any of those three. Marginalized RPG mechanics, the biggest complaint people have about Fallout 4, doesn't make the rest of the game invalid.
This is of course beside the point that 81% isn't even remotely a bad score on Steam. It's rated as "Very Positive" by Valve's set standards. Your assertion that this makes Fallout 4 Bethesda's "biggest POS to date" has the same merit as saying Toy Story 3 was Pixar's "biggest POS to date" when it was released in 2010 because it got 99% RT score instead of 100% like Toy Story 1 and 2.
You don't like Fallout 4. That's completely fine. But don't pretend like your opinion is fact. That's what I have a problem with.
I can totally see how building settlements and then defending them against random enemy hords in a MP-like (coop?) SP mission would work in MEA.
I find Fallout 4 to be the best game so far. It's hard to compare old games with new games, on top of nostalgic factors. Diablo 2 was good, but I don't think I can play it if it were released in this time and age. I can still play it because I was playing it back in the day. There is no need to say this game is better than the other games. It's more productive to say what each game can learn from each other. I would like the character development to be more important in Fallout 4 because I find them to be a lot more relatable with the various lines they say througout, interaction with other NPC, and their personal story which make them to be a lot better than companions in Skyrim. On the other hand, ME could learn how to develop a livelier world with more customization. I like to see more cultural side of the game and deeper backstory and if they choose to go open world, I want to see ME to make NPCs more alive and sidequests to be more connected. While I'm not a fan of the Witcher, both companies could learn how to make the sidequests related more to the main quests as well. They all have things they can learn from each other.
it certainly managed to be more narratively focused than DA:I
Part of the problem with open world games is that the main quest tends to be on a rail (and in some cases like with Oblivion the main quest was just boring, on one playthrough I just did it to get rid of it early so I could then did do all the fun stuff), and everything else tends to be flexible. This is really true some games like the Saints Row and GTA where the players start being more silly and that can take away from the serious dramatic weight that the main quest might have. (OK Saints Row IV was just plain silly to begin with, but IMHO the more dramatic elements felt weird and out of place) and leaves me thinking: "Should I be happy or mad?"
You don't like Fallout 4. That's completely fine. But don't pretend like your opinion is fact. That's what I have a problem with.
Doesn't like that Dlux is acting as though his opinion is fact, yet claimed one narrative is objectively better than the other.
Seems legit.
Retour en haut
