Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

The question I've been asking myself since Fallout 4 is: what freedom are those bugs really buying you these days? Not, seemingly, alternate ways to play the game or anything, you just go to X and shoot everything at X. The ability to pick up and put things down? Kiting enemies into wonky situations?

 

[krameriffic]

"‘OK look you need to tell us what’s important, because there’s this much time between now and ship, period."

That's their problem, right there. You don't ship until you fixed all the bugs you know of. Period.

Found the guy who's never developed software.

 

[Sayad]

GTA isn't buggy? Cars can just vanish. Also MGSV had a bug that wrecked your save. I am sure there's examples in the other games you listed too. And this all ignoring that none of those games you listed deliver the scope of something like skyrim.

I swear some you just don't grasp the complexity. There is more going on here than the fact they are open world.

I ran into more bugs in the first hour of Skyrim than the entirety of my MGSV/GTAV play throughs. It's unrealistic to expect an open world game to ship completely bug free, but there's a limit to how much most players would let slide.

Complexity argument is bullshit too, Skyrim's graphic isn't anywhere near as technical as any of the game I've listed, yet it has more graphical bugs than all of them combined. It's collision/physics system is nowhere nearly as complex as GTAV, yet it has way more bugs there. It's animations are basic compared to any of those game, yet it has way more animation bugs, etc...

It's a combination of using a shitty engine and how much they actually care about shipping a buggy products, how many companies would ship an AAA game where the game run at sub 10fps when your save file get past a certain file size?!

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

All the quality control in the world isn't going to help much when they're dealing with an extensively modified engine that was already pretty buggy and unpredictable before doing what they did.

Its the same. Why they use a buggy engine? Because they don't want to invest time and money in a new one. They obviously don't have to, people buy their games nonetheless.

 

[iddqd]

The question I've been asking myself since Fallout 4 is: what freedom are those bugs really buying you these days? Not, seemingly, alternate ways to play the game or anything, you just go to X and shoot everything at X. The ability to pick up and put things down? Kiting enemies into wonky situations?

Fantastic point!

 

[GifGafIsTheBestGaf]

The Witcher 3 had a ton of patches. And the Witcher 3 doesn't have anything close to the systems that Bethesda games have.

true, but it was never a mess like their games usually are after release. and they never get improved like CDPR did with the Witcher 3 (or their other games for that matter)

also if you want to nitpick even more, this was the first time for CDPR to work with all major platforms at the same time. and how many years has bethesda been doing it now?

and this isnt about lazy devs but how bullshit bias some of you are when some other games drop a frame or two and are missing a patch of grass here and there but they get away with sometimes unplayable games at times

 

[Phoenix RISING]

That's just infeasible and not how this kind of software development works. There's always going to be bugs. You just need to draw a line where you think the acceptable bugs are.

As the end-consumer, eff that. Your logic is why don't pay full price for their games.

 

[old manatee]

The question I've been asking myself since Fallout 4 is: what freedom are those bugs really buying you these days? Not, seemingly, alternate ways to play the game or anything, you just go to X and shoot everything at X. The ability to pick up and put things down? Kiting enemies into wonky situations?

Lol so true. Fallout 4 is just an open world shooter. Somehow even Ubisoft can make a polished open world shooter.

 

[Dangansona]

Unless they offer the exact same feature set with the exact same systems, there isn't a whole lot of use in comparing the number of bugs between games as an indicator of technical prowess.

I really did not like Fallout 4 but it doesn't seem right to just say "Look at Nintendo, you lazy devs."

 

[giapel]

Not if the people who buy your games prefer the complexity despite the bugs. The armchair experts talking in dumbass generalities about how software "should" be and what businesses "should" do are just seriously annoying. Involves programming my ass. Jesus fucking Christ.

I don't even like Bethesda games but ffs if you don't know shit, stfu. Stop fucking pretending.

Wow. So I need to be a games programmer to state that I don't want bugs in my games. There's clearly companies that deliver on that front and I'll support them. But you're welcome to defend shitty practices and hide them behind a bkanket: "you're not a programmer, you don't get it"

 

[funkystudent]

It will never be bug free but obviously bethesda just set a quality bar for themselves and don't see a reason to go above it.


Given the dissapointed reaction to F4 that even Howard mentioned once I think / hope they know they have to do better.

 

[nynt9]

As the end-consumer, eff that. Your logic is why don't pay full price for their games.

It's not my logic. Just try working at a large software development company that ships consumer products. QA has levels of bugs and with large, complex software there's always gonna be bugs in there that you have to categorize as acceptable.

 

[ghostwritingduck]

Not if the people who buy your games prefer the complexity despite the bugs. The armchair experts talking in dumbass generalities about how software "should" be and what businesses "should" do are just seriously annoying. Involves programming my ass. Jesus fucking Christ.

I don't even like Bethesda games but ffs if you don't know shit, stfu. Stop fucking pretending.

I've purchased every Fallout/Elder Scrolls since Oblivion. Back when Oblivion came out, there was nothing like it. Now we have seen different games do elements of those games better. BOTW is much better at traversal and exploration of the world. Witcher 3 did better quests/writing. Bethesda is where it's at for pick everything up and place it in weird places, but this enjoyable element is not the objective of their games which seems like a mistake.

 

[Screaming Meat]

I imagine a lot of people in here are armchair criticising and haven't the faintest idea of what goes into making games of this scope. I certainly don't, so I'll take the guy's word for it rather than off-handedly label it is an excuse.

In any case, the bugs aren't an issue for me, so long as it's playable and they don't break the game. If FO4 is anything to go by, Bethesda's most pressing issues at the moment are creating robust, reactive missions, and space for the player to actually role play.

 

[SapphiCine]

Sounds like a bad philosophy combined with poor planning. Lessons are not being learned.

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

ITT people who don't work on software development or pretend to work in software development.

I've been saying for years this isn't a QA issue - QA CATCHES THESE BUGS!

There's a triage that happens when a bunch of bugs are reported and the blockers get fixed first along with high priority bugs. Medium and lower priority bugs are nice to haves but not worth delaying a launch. Eventually, there'll be a cut with a release and the company will do so knowing there are bugs in the release still. Or, because nobody is perfect, even Blizzard, the big fix will introduce another bug that wasn't caught.

Other times, a bug is reported and while you do the best you can to document and reproduce, it's incredibly hard and only affects a small number of users. Devs will focus on the ones affecting the largest amount of users first and then focus on the rest. I've reported bugs that affect only one user, and it can take months before it makes it's way to the top of the queue to be dealt with.

This simply isn't a matter of not having enough devs or QA. Making games is a business that requires money and a return on that money spent - while I'm sure a lot of companies want to make a good game since that will provide a higher return on investment, they also want to get a release out to fix shit and work on something new too.

 

[hemo memo]

I don't want bug free but after Witcher 3 I expect a certain level of quality on release. You can't maintain a certain level of quality then how about a smaller and more polished game on release and good post release support?

 

[ZeroGravity]

Some of those comments on the first page... BotW really was some people's first dive into open world games.

Its easy to see why when you have developers like Bethesda who release shoddy products that turn people off of these types of games.

 

[TyrantII]

I don't buy the complexity argument either. Bethesda isn't doing anything radically different than other open world games. They have more persistence, but that typically isn't where the bugs are coming from (last gen save file issue excluded).

All signs point to the Gamebryo engine.

Bethesda really needs to invest in a modern, built up from the ground engine that encompasses their open world design philosophy. They're just making a business decision that they don't need to make that investment.

 

[Sir Abacus]

Elder Scrolls games have been broken af since Daggerfall. It's a gaming tradition at this point that the engine is going to be buggy as shit.

I ended up ragequitting TES completely after losing a save in Daggerfall. Since then I haven't been back. I tried TES Online because, you know, how could they screw up a save file server side? But I just wasn't feeling it.

 

[Silent Chief]

Everybody triage bugs. Nothing special here.
There's a difference between bugs in something that release regularly, like let's say an operating system, and a game which is only released once. In a recurrent product, bugs that are present in a previous release are not tracked in the latest release. New bugs get higher priority. Than as you edge closer and closer to the release date, you evaluate which bugs needs to be fix now and which can be patched later. If you have too many bugs to fix in time, you have to delay the product, or you lose credibility with your customers.

Now, that's just the process of managing bugs.
Finding and fixing bugs is a completely different thing in itself.
Some companies requires manual code inspection of every updates. Some verify that all their code compiles without any warnings from the compiler. Some do several layers of static code analysis before letting any update through. Some don't do anything like. Just releasing hundreds of million lines of code doesn't means there's a high bug density. That's more a culture thing.

 

[Ambient80]

ITT people who don't work on software development or pretend to work in software development.

I've been saying for years this isn't a QA issue - QA CATCHES THESE BUGS!

There's a triage that happens when a bunch of bugs are reported and the blockers get fixed first along with high priority bugs. Medium and lower priority bugs are nice to haves but not worth delaying a launch. Eventually, there'll be a cut with a release and the company will do so knowing there are bugs in the release still. Or, because nobody is perfect, even Blizzard, the big fix will introduce another bug that wasn't caught.

Other times, a bug is reported and while you do the best you can to document and reproduce, it's incredibly hard and only affects a small number of users. Devs will focus on the ones affecting the largest amount of users first and then focus on the rest. I've reported bugs that affect only one user, and it can take months before it makes it's way to the top of the queue to be dealt with.

This simply isn't a matter of not having enough devs or QA. Making games is a business that requires money and a return on that money spent - while I'm sure a lot of companies want to make a good game since that will provide a higher return on investment, they also want to get a release out to fix shit and work on something new too.

That's fine and great and totally makes sense. It really does!

As an end user, I don't really care. I'm tired of games being released with awful bugs, and I'll spend my money on ones with less issues.

 

[Xenoblade]

I just can't get into Bethesda's open world games for this very reason. Despite their best efforts, I always seem to find bugs in their games and it really takes me out of the world they're trying to engross me in.

 

[Sad Affleck]

Most people don't really mind the traditional Bethesda jank, but there's no excuse if you ship a game with a number of serious game-stopping bugs. I don't care how complex the game is, I expect a fully working product out of the box.

What would be a good alternative to Gamebryo? Can other engines support a game of that style?

 

[Sayad]

Lots of corporate apologist here, think of all the money Bethesda would lose if they delayed an ES game six months to fix more bugs... Think of the poor share holders!

 

[Zakalwe]

Is comparing it to Zelda really apt? I imagine a game built for multiple consoles from different manufacturers along with PC that has a base seeking the tools to alter the game themselves has different caveats than developing BotW.

Not to mention Zelda is a different genre.

It's an open world RPG, how is it a different genre?

 

[RedSwirl]

In terms of the number of NPCs going about schedules and physics objects that keep their states persistent throughout the game, I don't think any major release in the market is at the same scale of Elder Scrolls.

There maybe other games that do certain things better or have technically bigger worlds, but the number of AI and physics things Skyrim has to keep track of is still way beyond Witcher 3, Zelda, Ubisoft games, and Rockstar games. Not just the number either, but the fact that the game has to record any and all chances to the states of those things and remember them forever. Finally, I think Skyrim had a smaller team working on it than Witcher 3 or Zelda.

In my opinion dealing with bugs is actually a matter of how much you're willing to put up with divided by what the game offers in return. Arma 3 is probably five times buggier than Skyrim (it's the same tech as DayZ if you want a frame of reference) and I've still put almost 300 hours into it because in terms of scale and AI interactions it's far beyond anything Call of Duty or Battlefield have ever even dreamed of trying. I can't get this type of shooter anywhere else so I keep playing Arma. Millions of people still play Skyrim because its range of physics and AI interactions provide for a sandbox role playing experience you still can't quite get in Witcher 3, Zelda, or really any recent major release.

 

[patapuf]

It's an open world RPG, how is it a different genre?

Bethesthas world are persistent (every nook you move gets saved) and there's much more NPC's with an actual routine who populate the world. Nevermind a huge amount of ways to play the game with stealth magic etc (though that stuff got streamlined more and more).

 

[TeddyShardik]

Yeah that triage thing would be cool if they actually paid for QA staff. And even when the one guy testing their games comes out and shows them a list of high priority bugs they still don't get fixed.
Your games don't work like they should. I don't pay what you demand. It's that simple.
I know your job is hard but so is mine and in the end I'm your customer and don't have to excuse your failings because shit's hard.

I realize this is not on hard working devs who basically do what they can with whatever they're given. It just gets frustrating when you get another game on the same shit engine that crashes and fucks up all over the place until the community fixes in the 3 months following bethesda's cashgrab.

 

[Teletraan1]

I don't like the BotW comparison. Bethesda didn't sit on a completed Skyrim for a while to launch it with a new console.

 

[Tigress]

Are half of those interactive objects worth having in the long run? Or would their removal make it less of a 'Bethesda' game?

Full disclosure: I do not play Bethesda games and have no clue as their respective quality or what people really enjoy about them so I'm just curious.

As some one who loves Bethesda games, yes the removal would make it less of a Bethesda game. For example, some one on the Fallout subreddit was posting how he was amused his daughter was rping brushing dogmeat by taking a brush and moving it back and forth. I know some of you roll your eyes and say why is that so important but the whole uniqueness of Bethesda games that no other game I've played (that isn't turn based and even turn based is limited in this reguard) lets you roleplay your character to that extent. No other game really feels like you are in a simulation of the world rather than playing a game by its set rules. Having every item actually be an individual item that you can interact with that the game actually remembers makes the world feel more real. Rather than almost every other game items just being things that its told to load in as default so they always load back in the same way when you come back as well as you really can't interact with them. ones you put in your inventory just come out as little bags or representation of item here if you drop them (like witcher's little bags left in the roadway if you drop items). It makes the items themselves feel more real and the world more a simulation of a world.

I love sitting down when my character eats and going to bed at night even if there is no gameplay reason to (my character insists on getting sleep, insists on eating a few times a day). I love setting up her trophies of different items she's found around the house she has (granted their system tends to eventually fuck up and load the items wrong and I have to re arrange them but teh system is set up to let you do that even if it's buggy about it).

I would be honestly pissed if they sacrificed that kind of stuff just to make the game run smoother than it does (in otherwords I think the payoff is worth it and it would ruin a lot of what I like about their games to do it. Leaving a lot of what I think they are not so good at compared to other game makers like story writing). I mean I wouldn't complain if they can get the game to run smoother, I do think they are one of the worst ones out there. But not if it means sacrificing what makes their games so unique compared to others. And really, I am not a programmer (though I did take some basic programming classes in college so I know the basic ideas behind it) but I can easily understand why all the different complexity in game creates a lot of bugs and why it is probably not feasable to get them all fixed. And I disagree with some one that they only fix the easy ones. The only really bad bug I found in Fallout got fixed in their first major patch (but it was gamebreaking for the people who got it as it disallowed you to go in an area that you needed for the main game. Made the game crash instantly if you crossed a line).

 

[RedSwirl]

Most people don't really mind the traditional Bethesda jank, but there's no excuse if you ship a game with a number of serious game-stopping bugs. I don't care how complex the game is, I expect a fully working product out of the box.

What would be a good alternative to Gamebryo? Can other engines support a game of that style?

They'd probably end up building a new one forked off Gamebryo.

Cloud Imperium and Warhorse are doing some interesting things with CryEngine. Star Citizen and Kingdom Come look like they're trying to have similarly deep levels of simulation to Elder Scrolls but I don't know how far they're taking it. I guess I'm not really the one to know how far someone could take Unreal Engine for instance.

Arma has the same problem. It's been forking off the same tech since 1998 because CryEngine and Unreal and the like can't offer the insane draw distances those games rely on.

 

[Fahzgoolin]

This just irks me.

They obviously push quantity over quality. Proves to me that their development approach is not for me.

Imo, if you can't do something right or properly, don't do it at all. The cumulative bugs and general wonkiness isn't cute or amusing anymore.

It's tiresome and frustrating.

Not to mention, the vast amount of stuff they put into the games don't even feel complete or meaningful. This interview confirms that their games are just not for me anymore.

 

[TemplaerDude]

They only "leave them in" because the problem is their engine and that would require a complete overhaul. The actual, game-breaking issues their games have are rooted to the core and they know it.

 

[Zakalwe]

Bethesthas world are persistent (every nook you move gets saved) and there's much more NPC's with an actual routine who populate the world. Nevermind a huge amount of ways to play the game with stealth magic etc (though that stuff got streamlined more and more).

Sure, but that doesn't make it a different genre.

 

[Eusis]

Not really, no, but it will still be done a lot.

Bethesda's games do a lot of stuff different than Xenoblade or Zelda really.

Yeah. Xenoblade is far less interactive than Bethesda games and more akin to an MMO there, are so that one's very much apples and oranges, but Zelda might still have some merit. Still, while Zelda had more dynamic interactions there aren't really THAT many fiddly little componenets like in a Bethesda game, and NPC AI was pretty flat (and were invincible besides), and really it sounds like Zelda had a simple-yet-deep system.

 

[sirap]

I'm all for nixxing the "permanence" feature in future ES games if it means having better performance, less bugs and more resources diverted into other significant gameplay features.

But this is Bethesda. We'll see an engine revamp from Telltale first.

 

[Tigress]

Sure, but that doesn't make it a different genre.

No, but it makes it a different game that no other game really feels the same as. Just cause it's the same genre doesn't mean it is going to be like every other game. If that were true, why do we even bother having different games. Here's your generic RPG same as every other RPG.

Witcher is not Skyrim and neither is Zelda (nor is Zelda Witcher). And different people may enjoy different games or they may enjoy them all for different things they do well. And may have preferences depending on what they enjoy most. Just cause you like RPGs doesn't mean you'll enjoy the same RPGs as some one else (obviously, I love Bethesda games while other people don't. Because they don't care about the stuff I like about Bethesda games and find more importance in stuff Bethesda isn't so good at. Where as what I enjoy most Bethesda does well even if I do think they would be better if they fixed those other things <- I'm not saying I don't think Bethesda does some stuff badly and stuff that would make their game better if they did better. But for me that mainly goes into better story writing/quest writing and sadly, they are going less and less in allowing you to truly rp your character as their dialogue system is getting more and more you are playing our character *grumble*. And no, playing Witcher isn't the solution as you are definitely playing Geralt there, Witcher isn't trying to be a game where you get to make your own story within the story of the world... a huge example of why Witcher is not Skyrim and why some one might prefer Skyrim over it).

Let me put it this way. I prefer Bethesda games over Witcher (I haven't played Zelda so can't compare). Even though I think Witcher did a better job of doing what the game was aiming to do than Bethesda games do of what they aim to do. Simply because I prefer Bethesda's type RPG over Witcher (but I do think Bethesda is getting worse and I do blame it a lot on them trying to cater to people who want them to be like other RPGs.... for example that stupid dialogue wheel trying to be like Bioware RPGs. Or the more constrained story of Fallout 4 where you don't get as much choice to play who you want when they are trying (and failing really) to be better at story writing. I wish if they were going to mimick that they'd pay attention to New Vegas which shows how you get better writing while still allowing people choice to play who and how they want. you make the world the story and the character influences the world, not the character's story the important part. If Bethesda is going to take a lesson from any company on how to improve their games, I really wish it would not be CDPR or Bioware, I wish they'd look at how Obsidian treated New Vegas. Or even look at how turn based RPGs allow for more choice (after all that is what Bethesda originally made their games to be like, turn based RPGs but instead with live action).

 

[Zakalwe]

No, but it makes it a different game that no other game really feels the same as. Just cause it's the same genre doesn't mean it is going to be like every other game. If that were true, why do we even bother having different games. Here's your generic RPG same as every other RPG.

Witcher is not Skyrim and neither is Zelda (nor is Zelda Witcher). And different people may enjoy different games or they may enjoy them all for different things they do well. And may have preferences depending on what they enjoy most. Just cause you like RPGs doesn't mean you'll enjoy the same RPGs as some one else (obviously, I love Bethesda games while other people don't. Because they don't care about the stuff I like about Bethesda games and find more importance in stuff Bethesda isn't so good at. Where as what I enjoy most Bethesda does well even if I do think they would be better if they fixed those other things <- I'm not saying I don't think Bethesda does some stuff badly and stuff that would make their game better if they did better. But for me that mainly goes into better story writing/quest writing and sadly, they are going less and less in allowing you to truly rp your character as their dialogue system is getting more and more you are playing our character *grumble*. And no, playing Witcher isn't the solution as you are definitely playing Geralt there, Witcher isn't trying to be a game where you get to make your own story within the story of the world... a huge example of why Witcher is not Skyrim and why some one might prefer Skyrim over it).

Obviously.... but it still doesn't make it a different genre, which was the only statement I had issue with.

I'm aware of the inherent issues with using genres to define things.

 

[Fisty]

I just started Fallout 4 on PS4 Pro a week or two ago, and I feel like it was made by a completely different company. Coming off of Fallout 3 and New Vegas on PS3 (GOTY editions on both), 4 almost feels like a Naughty Dog game. I know a lot of that is down to PS4 Pro brute-forcing and gen 8 memory headroom in general, but I haven't wanted to throw a controller through the TV yet, which is impressive for a Fallout console game. I've had 2 crashes, pretty damn smooth performance (besides hitching in Far Harbor's fog), and no quest-breaking glitches.

 

[Fahzgoolin]

I just started Fallout 4 on PS4 Pro a week or two ago, and I feel like it was made by a completely different company. Coming off of Fallout 3 and New Vegas on PS3 (GOTY editions on both), 4 almost feels like a Naughty Dog game. I know a lot of that is down to PS4 Pro brute-forcing and gen 8 memory headroom in general, but man this is the first Bethesda game where I haven't wanted to throw a controller through the TV. I've had 2 crashes, pretty damn smooth performance (besides hitching in Far Harbor's fog), and no quest-breaking glitches.

Honestly it's not your pro or polish. It's luck.

I have a pc much more capable than a pro and everything that could go wrong has. Had to uninstall. Compare that to my friend on pc and had only a few of my issues.

Enjoy your luck. Lol

 

[[TW]Stone]

What do they do differently that would cause their games to have significantly more bugs?

A lot. A lot more behind the scenes going on

 

[2+2=5]

Those comparing Zelda to Bethesda games clearly haven't played a Bethesda game.

The biggest thing that hit me when i played a Bethesda game for the first time(Oblivion) was the immense world full of objects and junk in the wild and in houses, everytime you moved something you would find that something there in the same position you left it even after 100 hours... Why do you think save games constantly grow up in size? Because they need to keep all the infos on the junk you moved...

Now that's great and all, but honestly i don't see the point of such precision, i don't think anyone would complain if after a certain amount of hours objects return to their default place if this means smaller save games and less bugs.

 

[Truant]

Comparing Skyrim/3D Fallout to other open world games is mostly unfair. Skyrim has a nearly 100% persistent world, meaning most objects and characters do not reset when the player leaves an area. This means any object can be moved to any location in the game and will stay there indefinitely.

Name one other AAA large open world game where this is possible.

 

[Tookay]

Comparing Skyrim/3D Fallout to other open world games is mostly unfair. Skyrim has a nearly 100% persistent world, meaning most objects and characters do not reset when the player leaves an area. This means any object can be moved to any location in the game and will stay there indefinitely.

Name one other AAA large open world game where this is possible.

But that's missing the point.

The question is: what does all that persistence buy you exactly? Does having the game remember every spoon you move really matter that much, if it contributes to the game breaking down on a technical level? I'd argue that it does not.

I don't like the BotW comparison. Bethesda didn't sit on a completed Skyrim for a while to launch it with a new console.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Fisty]

Honestly it's not your pro or polish. It's luck.

I have a pc much more capable than a pro and everything that could go wrong has. Had to uninstall. Compare that to my friend on pc and had only a few of my issues.

Enjoy your luck. Lol

Hmm that's hilarious because I actually did roll a max luck build lol

Also, when did you play? Recently or closer to launch?

 

[Truant]

Everybody who keeps saying that Skyrim is different from BotW because of "persistence" is missing the point.

The question is: what does all that persistence buy you exactly? Does having the game remember every spoon you move really matter that much, if it contributes to the game breaking down on a technical level? I'd argue that it does not.

The Elder Scrolls games are designed to be a fantasy sandbox, and a large appeal of that is lots of loot, the ability to claim virtually any building as your home and decorate it with items you find in the world. The world feels real and tactile because you can interact with everything. Like it or not, this is one of the fundamental aspects of Betshesda's design philosophy for these games, and one of the reasons the games are so successful.

 

[Biske]

You know, I actually don't mind bugs here and there. As long as there isn't game breaking, questing ending bugs, which they've definitely missed a lot of those...


I'd be willing to forgive more bugs if say... Fallout 4 was more than a collection of generic "oh got this settlement is in trouble!" boring ass quests ending with every ending being essentially the same non thought out "eh live is hell" kind of BS.


You have to have a lot of highs to sustain the little bogs of shit you fall into and they've really just been dropping the ball.



I wish they would narrow things down.

The question I've been asking myself since Fallout 4 is: what freedom are those bugs really buying you these days? Not, seemingly, alternate ways to play the game or anything, you just go to X and shoot everything at X. The ability to pick up and put things down? Kiting enemies into wonky situations?

Yup. The only choice you ever have in the game is "who am I going to chose to senselessly murder"


"Got a quest for you, some folks need murdering, are you going to murder them?"

Yes.

No, I have to murder other people.

 

[Fahzgoolin]

Hmm that's hilarious because I actually did roll a max luck build lol

Also, when did you play? Recently or closer to launch?

A couple months ago. =/

Lol

 

[Common Knowledge]

I don't actually experience too many glitches that harm my enjoyment in Bethseda games, but I do agree that the game engine they use is terribly outdated and everything from movement to combat just feels off.

Also, my Skyrim Special Edition crashes quite a bit on my PS4. Anybody else have that issue?