Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Hopefully it comes out early October and not in November. I don't want to have to pick between Fallout 4 and Star Wars Battlefront.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fallout 4 Officially Revealed for PC, Xbox One, PS4 [Reddit Rumor = Ban]
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
JetBlackPanda
Member
holy shit, this is horrible.
So did the thread already talk about the old rumor on reddit that seems to have been on the money with everything up until now: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/28v2dn/i_played_fallout_4/
A lot of cool stuff. But it also says you can't make a female character in the main story. If that is also true, yiiiiikes.
A lot of cool stuff. But it also says you can't make a female character in the main story. If that is also true, yiiiiikes.
This isn't the Snoop Dogg weed meme.
Solid Samus
Banned
In Fallout 3, I'm a survivor. I'm whoever I want to be. In my current playthrough, I'm a cynical 19 year old kid with social issues, who isn't too smart, and who isn't prepared for the outside world, but who happened to be a huge fan of old world Baseball growing up, so at least he's got a bit of agility and stamina. I've got a house carved from the ruins of an old water tower. I like to keep my favorite gun, an old rusty Sten, on top of my desk, and changes of clothes on the second story of this makeshift home. I frequently gets into fights in town, and I like to test fate, but the key to my survival has been my unique ability to haul ass like noone ever has when shit gets too rough. I have plenty of unique and emergent stories to tell about my journeys into the wastes, and my journeys back home. Stories not defined by a particular questline or twist, but by the strange and ever changing nature of the world and its denizens. Stories that forced me to truly improvise with the myriad things I had, forced me to abandon loot to run away from unexpected threats, forced me to hide in sewers or among ruined tunnels instead of following the route the crow flies.
Playing a Fallout game is a very different experience from playing The Witcher 3 and you can't make the argument that it's not without boiling down both games to very base forms and arguing using surface level similarities. Tigress made an excellent post last page about how just the simple act of being able to pick up and move clutter enables a totally different perspective on roleplaying and personalization.
It's not like the games are totally, wholly different in every single aspect, sure. They're directly comparable in some aspects, particularly the quality of the writing, and the impact of choice during questlines, but they're also structured very differently and have swathes of gameplay differences both large and small that contribute to the games feeling and playing out very differently from one another, to the point where I'd argue they're not directly comparable, because they're not played and enjoyed for quite the same reasons.
What you describe is the fantasy of how Bethesda games operate, not how they actually operate. The main quest forces you down a very specific path. Even if you choose to completely ignore the main quest, you're still very limited in how you can resolve side quests. Say the things you want? How often did Fallout 3 really give you a choice in what you can say that actually made any difference? The occasional dialogue check that resulted in the same outcome + some extra XP isn't roleplay, it's a gimmick.
Bethesda sell the idea of "be anyone" but they railroad you at almost every turn.
Juxo
Member
Beelzebufo
Banned
That would piss me off haha, if only because that's such a random change that's a first for the series.
BouncyFrag
Member
Me too. Part of the experience of getting a new, big game like FO4 is waiting a long ass time for it with the announcement itself being just the first stage in a long waiting game. Most expected just some CGI and a logo for this but we got so much more.
Definitely going to preorder, but the CE's for both FO3 and FONV were awesome, so I'm holding out to see what Bethesda's going to put together for FO4. Hopefully NOT a statute, but I will be happy with a high-quality bobble head. Artbook/world history, a la World of Thedas would be great too.
Fucking terrible lmao
That's nice. Hey, I do the same thing. Mental LARP'ing. We both have imaginations and Bethesda force us to use them because the systems they develop don't actually allow you to be those characters for real. Anytime you do a quest, the illusion is shattered because there's almost no choice in most of them and you can only interact with characters one way.
So sure you can just hang out in the Wasteland pretending you're whatever character you want to be, ignoring all the quests. That still doesn't make Fallout 3 uncomparable to Witcher 3, it just means it leaves less room for you to imagine the details of your own character, a character forced to ignore all of Bethesda's quests because they are almost always tailored for a specific type of character.
Going by this thread, it seems like people play Bethesda games only because they can collect sporks or some shit because it sure as shit can't be the writing or the gameplay.
shinobi602
Member
Legit shook if it doesn't come out this year.
Aces&Eights
Member
Let us not forget that in Bethesda games you can pick up a lot of stuff in the environment. Cups, ammo, stimpaks, etc. All in real time. Witcher has all items in chests. Not saying it changes everything but the games engine renders a lot more in the real time world in Fallout than Witcher 3.
Regardless, I'm super hyped for this game. It could be an exact replica of the trailer and I'd still buy it day one. People complain about downgrades then when an honest trailer comes out they complain about fidelity. Like Bethesda owes them something. They are selling the game. You don't have to buy it. You're not a stockholder. They could make it the shittest game ever and that is their right. Complain with your wallet if you don't like it. Why come on GAF and give detailed a thesis about how Bethesda owes you the game you think it should be. My ex wife didn't live up to my expectations and took a lot more than 60 bucks from me. I divorced her and moved on. Didn't need to whine in threads about it.
wtf was that
BouncyFrag
Member
I'm in it for the sweetrolls and long, moonlit walks on the beach with Fisto.
Of course it's my opinion, but clearly many people in the thread share it. You say you think "the graphics look fine". Doesn't sound like very warm praise. Is it an "unreasonable expectation" to expect the game to look better than Skyrim?
And no, I'm not "thread shittng". Many people have been waiting for this game for a long time. If those people aren't satisfied with the way the game looks, or the fact that it seems like Bethesda is ripping the terrible assets/animations straight from Fallout 3, then why shouldn't they complain?
Emulated Hype
Member
No female protag, no buy. Hope that rumor is false.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
You just described most modern games. Congratulations.
Yeah buddy unfortunately you lost on that one.
FunkyPajamas
Member
LMAO.
So 2015? That explains the graphics then.
Solid Samus
Banned
I think that that's an unfair generalization (I've held to my roleplaying character in almost every circumstance - the immersion breaks come mostly from awfully written characters like Moira and Nathan and Dr Lazko and that fucking creep at Little Lamplight and AntAgonizer and The Mechanist etc and I'm hoping Bethesda might have learned a few lessons from Oblivion and from NV's reception over the years) and also a bit dismissive, but keep in mind that I don't even disagree with you RE: Fallout 3's quality. Like I said, you might as well check my post history if you wanna see someone really raking Fallout 3 over the coals, because I've shat on that game. Hard. <<< Fallout 1/2 fan over here. <<< That doesn't change or invalidate the point I'm trying to make - the moment to moment, minute to minute, hour to hour experience that modern Fallout games cultivate is wholly removed from Witcher 3's more directed and less personalized RPG experience. They are not directly comparable games, because they work to achieve very different things with their very different systems. I don't know why this is such a difficult thing to argue.
BouncyFrag
Member
Lol at people lecturing to others how they shouldn't like Bethesda games for reasons x,y, and z. I'm loving the hell out of TW3 but expect no less from FO4 which I hope turns out to be the case.
It says so much that people are using the fact that you can pick up a cup as a defense of Fallout 3 against Witcher 3. They should've put that on the box.
I mean really how does any of that change anything at all. OK those things are in the environment and you can grab them, and that helps immersion. Do I really need to list the 101 janky things in Bethesda's engine that BREAK immersion?
True , but my point still stand , availability to Preorder =/= proof it is coming out soon .
( that being said , if the EB tweet is accurate it might come out soon indeed .
Herpes Reasons
Banned
WTF is that?
Solid Samus
Banned
You're being downright unfair with your dismissive attitude, at this point. Nobody is saying that being able to move things makes Fallout the most immersive game in the world, or outright better than Witcher. (did you even read the post I quoted above for you? because if you did, that just makes your blithe dismissal and twisting of words even worse...) - but it contributes to immersion, and helps to differentiate Fallout and Elder Scrolls from other RPGs in terms of roleplaying possibility. I'm saying that Fallout's systems and mechanics are in place to enable a very different kind of roleplaying game than The Witcher, and having played both I'm at a loss as to how anyone could disagree.
Beelzebufo
Banned
Only if you list the 101 janky things in the Witcher 3 that break immersion lol.
Seriously, the only thing Witcher has over Fallout is the writing, and even then it's still totally inconsistent (Geralt doesn't want to let a single person die in a mission, but then casually murders tons of people in others) and both try to tell completely different kinds of stories. Both games have tons of glitches, both in graphics and gameplay, and both have mediocre controls, but even then Fallout 3 controls way better than Witcher. You can also actually see what people are saying in Fallout lol, and the world is much better designed in terms of atmosphere.
What the actual fuck...
No hate here, I love that objects have physical shape and can be interacted with.
But it's the other 95% of Gamebryo garbage that ruins it. There have to be other engines that can support these kind of interactable objects the way Gamebryo does it, without the jank.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
It's this that irks me, you're well within the rights to think your graphics are shit, but the absolute answers are killing me.
"You are CRAZY if you think this will be a good game"
"There's no WAY these graphics are better than a game from 2007"
I disagree with you, because I think you're in the minority as far as how you're playing Fallout 3. For the average gamer, Fallout 3 and Witcher 3 are going to be lumped into the same group.
The Albatross
Member
Don't want the negative nancies to totally take this over. Fallout 3 is an excellent game, as is New Vegas, and while many Fallout enthusiasts like New Vegas a lot more, the general audience either thinks they're equal or may prefer Fallout 3 more than NV.
I'm one of the rare birds where I liked Fallout 3 more than New Vegas, and here's why:
- I think that that Capitol Wasteland was a more interesting place than the space of New Vegas. A major reason could be because I'm from the East Coast (though I've visited both DC and Vegas many times), but what I liked about the Capitol Wasteland in Fallout 3 was that there were more recognizable real world "things" that fit the Fallout universe well. I felt that New Vegas' world was really overhyped and poorly done. which leads me to...
- The Vegas Strip in New Vegas is the worst conceived area of any game world in a major title that I've ever seen. What was described as this bustling metropolis "just like" the Vegas strip (even an old Vegas-type strip) is an empty region with 4 empty buildings and a bizarre, poorly designed slum surrounding it. If you watch the developer diaries about this region before hand it's even worse because the developers are outright lying in the videos -- "This looks *just like* Vegas with casinos packed with people at slot parlours" and shit like that. In reality, every casino is legitimately empty with maybe 3 or 4 randomly wandering NPCs in a room. This is obviously an engine limitation, but I felt like DC's sparse historical buildings fit this engine limitation better than what New Vegas was trying to do.
- I like the history of DC more than the history of Vegas, and this works better, in my opinion, for a post-apocalyptic Fallout esque story. I felt it really fascinating when a faction would take over the Lincoln Memorial or the Smithsonian Natural History Museum or the Washington Monument. You do have a bit of that in New Vegas, but less so.
I also felt that New Vegas was a much more linear trajectory for mcuh of the first half of the game. It was open world that drove you in a specific path, not by invisible walls or anything, but very strong deadly creatures. That's fine and it's a good way to do it, but I felt that you were punished for exploring in NV especially for the first 20 hours, where as you were rewarded for it in Fallout 3, albeit it was still dangerous.
FO3 also had better DLC. If you do play FO3, definitely get the Broken Steel update. Skip Operation ANchorage until you beat the game it imbalances it. Some DLC like Point Lookout, IMO, was truly awesome.
I think most people like FO:NV because the choice & consequence is better than in Fallout 3, and I get that. I liked them both but really liked the world of the Capitol Wasteland moreso than the world of New Vegas. But I'm generally in the minority here wth that opinion, though it's a common opinion outside of enthusiast Fallout circles.
If you're going to play both of them (which you should and can do in the next 6 months), then I think you should play FO3 first and then NV.
*edit*
Here is the developer diary about NV and creating "the Strip" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7r2idnbfPc When I watched that I had so much hype. And then I played the game and was like "... are you... serious?" I had to rewatch the video to make sure I wasn't wrong. "The strip... the strip is just huge." I think it's 4 doors and a recurring NPC drunk/cracked out prostitute that approaches you and the same 4 dancing NPCs. "We want to make it big an huge with tons of people milling about and make it feel like I'm on the strip in real Las Vegas." I think maybe they cut off that quote where he must have said "unfortunately due to engine limitations we can't do that." But, nope, they left tthat quote in there. If you want to see the strip that is "big and huge with tons of people milling about and it feels just like the real strip in Las Vegas" here it is:
4 buildings. 3 NPCs standing still. A door and loading screen in the middle of it. WELCOME TO VEGAS!
Beelzebufo
Banned
Nah dude, I disagree. Witcher 3 is more of a character action game, you don't even design the way your character looks.
Swarming101
Member
hahaha
Not sure if serious? You can barely alter the appearance of your character in Fallout 3. Everyone looks the same.
Solid Samus
Banned
Playing Fallout 3 normally is still very different from playing Witcher 3 normally and that's the point I've been trying to make this entire time. Players might lump them into the same 'group' because of their genre but that doesn't make direct comparisons valid, just as direct comparisons between Witcher 3 and games like Dragon's Dogma or Kingdoms of Alamur wouldn't necessarily hold up, especially when argued using surface level traits that don't address the meat of the games or their meaningful differences from one another. but it seems we've reached an impasse and as we're both pretty chill right now over this it's probably for the best that we just drop this and agree to disagree, lol
Extra Sauce
Member
I agree.
I'm not saying it's not a good feature, but I've seen people use it to i) explain why Bethesda games are so ugly/janky, because it takes so much processing power to handle all those dynamic objects and ii) that it's one of the reasons Fallout 3 is more immersive than Witcher 3. I guess I just never felt that immersed just because I could put a pot on an NPC's head just so he could ignore it.
Well said.
Open world that you explore with a character whose attributes you can customize, with weapons and armour to collect, and quests to play through. These are not surface level traits. And you are the first person I've seen in this thread say that Witcher 3 and Fallout 3 are too different to compare.
Solid Samus
Banned
I don't wanna nitpick but I think that Fallout New Vegas had the best DLC of any game I've ever played short of Wipeout HD and Fallout 3's DLC largely doesn't hold a candle to it. Broken Steel and Point Lookout could compete with the best of NV's DLC, but the rest are arguably worse than even Honest Hearts.
There's context to consider when making those sorts of comparisons, and far as I can tell what you're doing right now is still boiling the games down to surface level depictions of these game's particular traits, without consideration for how their differences impact moment to moment gameplay and roleplaying possibilities within the context of those two worlds. Character attributes have very different impact and implications across the two games, and wildly different moment to moment relevance as well. Weapon and armor collection are very different and are engaged upon under differing contexts. Questlines and progression systems too are very different, though I'd be an ass if I didn't give The Witcher 3 the edge there regardless. but, tegardless of their perceived quality, these facts still stand, far as I'm concerned. I would and could never begin a playthrough of The Witcher 3 expecting anywhere near the same kind of roleplaying experience I'd get out of starting a Fallout 3 or New Vegas playthrough, for myriad reasons that should be considered.
My sentiments exactly. NV was a great game in its own right, but it never gave me the same feeling as FO3 did. The locales were much more interesting, and it felt much more dreary and post-apocalypticy
Give Obsidian FO3's setting? That would be interesting however.
-duskdoll-
Member
mysteriousmage09
Member
That does indeed explain things.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
I think it's easier for some to compare the two when they're both under the umbrella of AAA single player open world rpg, but it's obvious both games have much different design goals in terms of gameplay, world building, combat, and sense of player agency in the world. To me the tone changes drastically just due to third vs first person and the protagonist of W3 having such an integral role in the plot. In FO it feels a lot more you fill in the blanks as you're the "silent" protag that kind of feels more specter than active participant in the proceedings.
That said, W3 does story and world building superbly, but I wouldn't really compare it to FO as the two sit firmly in their own corners of the AAA rpg space design wise. Unless you wanna get reductionist and just discuss things like budget, graphics, and maps with markers and fast travel
That said, W3 does story and world building superbly, but I wouldn't really compare it to FO as the two sit firmly in their own corners of the AAA rpg space design wise. Unless you wanna get reductionist and just discuss things like budget, graphics, and maps with markers and fast travel
Beelzebufo
Banned
Here dude I'll start it out for you
1. The game breaking glitch in the new patch
2. The glitch that crashed the game during Gwent
3. The moving slideshow effect when you move the camera quickly around the horizon
4. The way NPCs never stop cowering even when there's nothing around
5. The way enemies like Drowners will stand there doing nothing even while you're attacking them
6. The way Geralt moves (I'm assuming this is a glitch because the whole game is about feeling like you are Geralt, and those movement controls make you feel like you're an awkward laggy robot)
You'll have to fill in the rest, but that's a good start. They should really put "Takes good screenshots!" on the box because I swear that's all anyone cares about LOL
Yeah, I feel like people are watching a different trailer from me. Do any of these people even remember what Skyrim looks like? How anyone can say that this isn't a big step up from that is beyond me. Is it The Witcher 3 at ultra level visuals? No. Is it "last gen" though? Fuck no.
I wouldn't even bother really. Just a waste of time and effort arguing with hyperbolic overreactions.