Support NeoGAF

[Psychoward]

But fallout 4 is gutting everything from its predecessor.

Let's see, they're adding more armor slots, vastly improving weapon and armor crafting, and adding settlements. What are they getting rid of exactly? Sure they're changing the skill system around but they're not gutting anything, just a different way of doing things.


Meanwhile Battlefront 3 has no campaign, no galactic conquest, only 4 planets, no prequels, no space battles and they're taking a dump on the gameplay by making things like vehicles tokens on the maps and AT-AT's on rails.

 

[Bsigg12]

I fully expect both games to have their fair share of issues at launch. Battlefront is a large DICE title which means we could potentially face Battlefield like server issues. Fallout 4 is a Bethesda game, nothing more needs to be said about it. I will be getting Fallout 4 at launch because I can deal with a buggy game rather than a game that just doesn't work online like it's meant to. I'll probably end up waiting for Battlefront go on sale later.

 

[braves01]

You're taking a risk with either game, since both have a record of buggy messes. But, I'd get Battlefront so you can play while online (fingers crossed) is the most active and fresh. You can always get Fallout later once fans have fixed it with mods and lose none of the experience.

 

[DudeWithNoName]

Buy FO4, play 400 hours, buy fully patched BF.

This is my plan as well.

 

[sexymajesco]

Let's see, they're adding more armor slots, vastly improving weapon and armor crafting, and adding settlements. What are they getting rid of exactly? Sure they're changing the skill system around but they're not gutting anything, just a different way of doing things.


Meanwhile Battlefront 3 has no campaign, no galactic conquest, only 4 planets, no prequels, no space battles and they're taking a dump on the gameplay by making things like vehicles tokens on the maps.

I can guarantee, they are removing the good dialog, quests, story, player freedom, humor and style from the earlier games.

 

[Tygamr]

I'd go for Fallout. Bethesda games tend to hold their value longer. Dice games seem to go down in price fairly quick. Both have a high chance of being buggy at launch though, based off of past titles from both developers.

 

[BigDes]

Let's see, they're adding more armor slots, vastly improving weapon and armor crafting, and adding settlements. What are they getting rid of exactly? Sure they're changing the skill system around but they're not gutting anything, just a different way of doing things.


Meanwhile Battlefront 3 has no campaign, no galactic conquest, only 4 planets, no prequels, no space battles and they're taking a dump on the gameplay by making things like vehicles tokens on the maps and AT-AT's on rails.

Dialog system turned into a Bioware choice wheel in Fallout 4.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Battlefront for me.

I'm not waiting around while others get good.
I'm going to be keeping my stats high.

Fallout will always be there for me. And it'll get mods and patches.


I'm going to have full parties of 8 for this game.

 

[Psychoward]

I can guarantee, they are removing the good dialog, quests, story, player freedom, humor and style from the earlier games.

Oh you can guarantee that eh? Tell me how the future is? Nonetheless that's still all subjective stuff, nothing as objective as what DICE is doing by OBJECTIVELY having less content and options than a game made 10 years ago.

Plus 4's more of a sequel to 3 and New Vegas so if you thought those were gutted from 1 and 2 I don't know what to even tell you considering you're clearly not interested in the modern interpretation of Fallout.

Dialog system turned into a Bioware choice wheel in Fallout 4.

That's not gutting anything, it's just a different way of doing it. Yes I'm not a fan but lol if you think that's gutting it, especially in comparison to DICE.

 

[sexymajesco]

Plus 4's more of a sequel to 3 and New Vegas so if you thought those were gutted from 1 and 2 I don't know what to even tell you considering you're clearly not interested in the modern interpretation of Fallout.

New Vegas atleast attempted to be a fallout game rather then a bland rpg with a somewhat interesting setting without any meaningful gameplay.

 

[Tigress]

Never? To this day, Skyrim is still an unplayable mess on PS3.

I played 400 hours of it on my PS3. It was perfectly playable for me (bought it a year after it came out).

 

[Steel]

You're planning to get both eventually, so it's pretty easy to suggest that you buy the multiplayer game first, seeing as multiplayer has a shelf-life. I'm not even that hyped for battlefront, too.

 

[Taruranto]

I know nothing about the other game, but pick Fallout 4 if you feel like Beta-testing for Bethesda for the first few months or so.

 

[Psychoward]

1. Minor bugs, sure. Game breaking bugs? Not acceptable.
2. Not developed sure, still published by.

Is number 2 a joke? The guys that make the Fallout and Elder Scrolls games didn't publish New Vegas. Lol are you one of those people who still think they made Elder Scrolls Online?

 

[Tigress]

It definitely would have been better if Skyrim had not been released on PS3. It was the weakest HD console of the last gen, and that split memory pool made it next to impossible for that game to work.

As some one who at the time she bought it only had a PS3, I'm glad they did. I'd rather play it as it was on PS3 than not at all.

 

[Psychoward]

New Vegas atleast attempted to be a fallout game rather then a bland rpg with a somewhat interesting setting without any meaningful gameplay.

I love New Vegas and prefer it to 3 yes but 4 isn't gutting anything purposefully, if the game doesn't have good writing that's not gutting it, especially when Fallout 3 is the predecessor.

 

[RoKKeR]

Both are good to avoid at launch, probably. I'll be playing Battlefront for 10 hrs via EA Access but after that I'm definitely waiting for a price I like before jumping in.

As for Fallout 4, as hyped as I am for it, Bethesda is known for buggy launches and the game could very well be dramatically improved by, say, Christmas time. I might opt for Tomb Raider on that day instead.

 

[sexymajesco]

Is number 2 a joke? The guys that make the Fallout and Elder Scrolls games didn't publish New Vegas. Lol are you one of those people who still think they made Elder Scrolls Online?

But Bethesda Softworks did publish New Vegas...

 

[Good Guy Gone Bad]

This thread made me remember the recent BF launches and now I'm rethinking my launch day purchase and may just wait for the news that the game is completely playable.

 

[Psychoward]

But Bethesda Softworks did publish New Vegas...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Game_Studios

Vs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Softworks


The guy said New Vegas wasn't developed by Bethesda but still published by them, implying the developer and the publisher Bethesda were under the same roof. The guys that made Fallout 3 and now 4 had absolutely no input with the bugs that New Vegas had or ESO in general.

 

[PeskyToaster]

I'm getting both.

 

[ps3ud0]

Jesus that first post...

I'd avoid both, one because it will likely to be a buggy mess and the other will be as a minimum the same if not worse. I don't think much of either dev especially for games at launch. Best to wait before you buy IMO.

ps3ud0 8)

 

[sexymajesco]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Game_Studios

Vs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Softworks

Im aware I was just clarifying that "Bethesda" did publish it, it could refer to either.

 

[Psychoward]

Im aware I was just clarifying that "Bethesda" did publish it, it could refer to either.

But that's not what the person I quoted meant.

 

[sexymajesco]

But that's not what the person I quoted meant.

Its an easy mistake to make when Bethesda is marketed as one big whole.

 

[Psychoward]

Its an easy mistake to make when Bethesda is marketed as one big whole.

Maybe but that's why I corrected the mistake?

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Bethesda's never done wrong.

 

[Gator86]

Jesus that first post...

I'd avoid both, one because it will likely to be a buggy mess and the other will be as a minimum the same if not worse. I don't think much of either dev especially for games at launch. Best to wait before you buy IMO.

Yup. That's a tragic first post and I'd wait for reviews/impressions on both. Both of these devs have proven they shouldn't be trusted to release stable products on release.

 

[sleepykyo]

Battlefront. Both games are going to be buggy at launch, but the mp component of Battlefront will fall off as players move onto other games. The single player components of both games will still be around.

 

[sexymajesco]

Maybe but that's why I corrected the mistake?

I bet you call out people that say Nintendo makes the legend of zelda.

 

[Creaking]

Never? To this day, Skyrim is still an unplayable mess on PS3.

I guess I unplayed it for 200+ hours since launch. Rough, yes. Unplayable, no.

 

[Machina]

Any self respecting gamer must find a way to get both.

 

[Psychoward]

I bet you call out people that say Nintendo makes the legend of zelda.

Lol dude hop off my dick k

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Save up a bit of money each week between now and launch and get both.

One thing in Fallout 4's favour is that it was nearly finished when they announced it, so it shouldn't have been rushed and it will be more polished at launch for a change (hopefully)

 

[Az987]

I don't know, depends on the platform I guess. Yeah DICE launched a broken game last year but all of Bethesda's PS3 outings last gen were broken at launch and didn't get all that much better after either.

I'll probably wait and make sure the PS4 version of Fallout 4 doesn't have the same problems.

 

[RageWaffles]

Buy the one you feel like playing the most. Likely a good choice either way.

Never? To this day, Skyrim is still an unplayable mess on PS3.

Either that's a pretty big exaggeration, or I had incredible luck. 300+ hours across two characters starting from launch day with minimal bugs. The only one I remember is having random dragons that would fly around but never attack, and they didn't take long to patch that. ...But New Vegas (yes, I know not developed by Bethesda)... my launch-day character is literally unplayable. I can't do anything in game, then it crashes after 10 minutes.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Fallout will be another in a line of buggy messes from Bethesda. How much of that do you wanna risk by going in Day 1 is up to you

 

[nampad]

Those games are so different but there is an argument for Battlefront because of the MP element. If you buy it at release, you level with the player base. That way, you won't start as a scrub when everyone has all the unlocks some months into the game.

Getting in early with Battlefront makes sure you are at it when the player base is at a high but you probably won't have to worry about the community dying anytime soon after the release anyway.

 

[googoomuck22]

this is gonna be another one of those threads where everyone shits on Bethesda isn't it

 

[injurai]

Skyrim was fine on PC day one.

 

[sn00zer]

How about you wait for reviews? What is this thread even?

 

[Cheddahz]

Battlefront might be easier to pick up and play whenever you have the time to, so I'm going to say to go with that one

 

[PeskyToaster]

this is gonna be another one of those threads where everyone shits on Bethesda isn't it

It's because Bethesda games are super popular and get high ratings (and are super fun) while people on here like games that get mediocre scores and sell poorly. Like Alpha Protocol or any weird JRPG that no one has ever heard of. This is chalked up to things like marketing because "if so many people don't like what I like then it's not me that's wrong, they have been tricked and are stupid."

 

[Concept17]

Battlefront, because the hype levels for Star Wars will be too much, and you'll buy it regardless.

 

[Reckless Onion]

Bethesda's never done wrong.

DICE has.

jenniferlawrenceok.gif

 

[Lulubop]

Hold on, let me play both my copies and get back to you.

 

[Magic Mushroom]

Bethesda's never done wrong.

DICE has.

Bethesda's gameplay sucks balls.

 

[John Kowalski]

Their games are buggy messes day 1

It's Bethesda, that's a feature.

Consoling your way out of Gamebryo is half the fun.

 

[Gator86]

It's because Bethesda games are super popular and get high ratings (and are super fun) while people on here like games that get mediocre scores and sell poorly. Like Alpha Protocol or any weird JRPG that no one has ever heard of. This is chalked up to things like marketing because "if so many people don't like what I like then it's not me that's wrong, they have been tricked and are stupid."

You wasted a lot of words to just call people who criticize Bethesda "haters," which is always the height of intellectual discourse. It's surely not the long list of issues with Bethesda games such as general bugginess, terrible animations, stiff gameplay, etc. Nope, just some haters hatin' on shit because Metacritic. Sounds legit to me.

 

[Vaudeville Villain]

Bethesda's never done wrong.

DICE has.

Bethesda hasn't done wrong? Have you played oblivion? Or skyrim?


Both poorly designed games.