Support NeoGAF

[Lord of Castamere]

I doubt this means anything like "there is over 400 hours of content", by finding new things it could mean something along the lines of unexpectedly coming across a group of NPCs randomly fighting each other or something simple like that.

There's no context either. That could be 8 different playthroughs for all we know.

 

[Almighty]

And I fully disagree. I loved the first person action Bethesda brought to fallout and also the more interesting exploration. Obsidian came in and took that and brought in much more interesting writing, better character writing, better quests, a more coherant world, better first person shooting (iron sights made shooting fun and I stopped using vats), much better crafting. They took what Bethesda made better (and sorry, I do prefer the live action over turn based and the world itself was more interesting to just roam around in) and fixed what Bethesda is weak in. I would probably have considered 2 a better game if they made Vegas turn based and as is Vegas is my favorite fallout. It would not be without bethesda's mark on it.

And btw the turn based combat is not what makes fallout great, even the old school fallouts. Whether you prefer it is a matter of preference but it really isn't what makes it great.

Yeah turn based is not what makes Fallout great it is the writing, the characters, the setting, and all that and in those areas Bethesda really didn't bring much to the table in my opinion. Where we seem to diverge is I don't value the the first person perspective that highly and it seems you do. Honesty Fallout New Vegas could of been third person like Mass Effect or isometric like the first two and if Obsidian did it it would probably still of been just as great in my book.

I don't think he even really does that much. All the 'lies' I've seen have been things people just assumed would be something else. None of what i've seen that supposedly weren't true have been actual lies or even outright exaggerated, they're in the game like he said.

That is a fair point I think. Bethesda did put in "infinite" quests in Skyrim for example it was people who seemed to assume they wouldn't be crappy fetch quest or go here kill that quests. So i guess the lesson to learn is if Bethesda says something it will probably be in the game just keep your expectations very low.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

That is a fair point I think. Bethesda did put in "infinite" quests in Skyrim for example it was people who seemed to assume they wouldn't be crappy fetch quest or go here kill that quests. So i guess the lesson to learn is if Bethesda says something it will probably be in the game just keep your expectations very low.

I don't think it's about keeping expectations low, just not assuming it's going to be something completely outrageous. I don't know why when they said the game had infinite quests anyone expected it to be anything other than having some of the types of quests able to be generated repeatedly. As far as i know they didn't say there was an infinite amount of different quests, so i'm not sure what part of it they're supposed to have lied about.

In this case i'm not expecting 400 hours of content or anything like that, as they haven't actually suggested that. All this really suggests is that you may come across something you haven't seen before, without any context about what sort of thing that could be.

 

[Almighty]

I don't think it's about keeping expectations low, just not assuming it's going to be something completely outrageous. I don't know why when they said the game had infinite quests anyone expected it to be anything other than having some of the types of quests able to be generated repeatedly. As far as i know they didn't say there was an infinite amount of different quests, so i'm not sure what part of it they're supposed to have lied about.

In this case i'm not expecting 400 hours of content or anything like that, as they haven't actually suggested that. All this really suggests is that you may come across something you haven't seen before, without any context about what sort of thing that could be.

Yeah I think keeping expectations low works better. I mean sure with the Skyrim thing assuming they meant infinite well designed quests is on you pretty much, but let's not forget that Skyrim wasn't the first time they hyped up something to sound better then it was. Fallout 3's 200 endings or Oblivion's Radiant AI hype springs to mind.

 

[prag16]

What if the 100 hours had the variety, focus and scope of a well crafted 10 hour game?

That MAY be different then. Maybe. But #1, I've never once found that to be the case with a 100 hour game. Not even close. And #2, some of us only get 5-10 hours a week (sometimes less) to devote to gaming. 100 hours is a hell of a lot (let alone absurd numbers like 400) considering that.

/thread

No. It's a legitimate complaint. Maybe all 400 of those hours are full of tons of rich variety with no bland filler. But I somehow doubt it. As I said, some people aren't able to devote that much time to playing games. Unless it's absolutely fucking incredible, I don't want to spend 100+ hours on one playthrough of the same game these days, period. Even if the game is generally good/fun.

 

[OverBlood 3]

cause it's running at 10fps

 

[Vincent Grayson]

That MAY be different then. Maybe. But #1, I've never once found that to be the case with a 100 hour game. Not even close. And #2, some of us only get 5-10 hours a week (sometimes less) to devote to gaming. 100 hours is a hell of a lot (let alone absurd numbers like 400) considering that.



No. It's a legitimate complaint. Maybe all 400 of those hours are full of tons of rich variety with no bland filler. But I somehow doubt it. As I said, some people aren't able to devote that much time to playing games. Unless it's absolutely fucking incredible, I don't want to spend 100+ hours on one playthrough of the same game these days, period. Even if the game is generally good/fun.

Then some games simply aren't for you, and that's okay.

 

[old]

The only chance of you not seeing a single dragon, is if you completely disregard the main quest. As soon as you have done a couple of quest in that, you will meet dragons regularly.

Yeah, and it sucks that they chose to do that.

 

[bj00rn_]

I don't want to spend 100+ hours on one playthrough of the same game these days, period. Even if the game is generally good/fun.

This is madness. Who the fuck is holding the gun to your head while you're playing your games. Why are you playing big games if you don't want to play them. And not the least why on earth do you want to stop playing a game that you enjoy playing.. What craziness is this..

 

[Lord of Castamere]

Yeah I think keeping expectations low works better. I mean sure with the Skyrim thing assuming they meant infinite well designed quests is on you pretty much, but let's not forget that Skyrim wasn't the first time they hyped up something to sound better then it was. Fallout 3's 200 endings or Oblivion's Radiant AI hype springs to mind.

That's a industry issue though. PR speak loves to leave things exaggerated, but also vague enough so that your imagination fills in the blanks.

Like the settlement system, for example. It sounds great IMO, but when it turns out that only 3 out the 12 spots allow for more than a Skyrim Hearthfire size house dreams will be crushed. They leave it vague enough so you think "Can I build an entire city?", but when the game comes out and you can't do anything close to that they're like "Well you said it, not us.".

 

[TheVoidDragon]

Yeah I think keeping expectations low works better. I mean sure with the Skyrim thing assuming they meant infinite well designed quests is on you pretty much, but let's not forget that Skyrim wasn't the first time they hyped up something to sound better then it was. Fallout 3's 200 endings or Oblivion's Radiant AI hype springs to mind.

The 200 endings was how they said it would be, though. It was quite clear (at least the quote i found was) that he meant there would be over 200 different combinations at the ending, not actually 200 different endings. As far as i know Oblivion's Radiant AI was also how they said it would be with NPCS having 'lives', reacting to things differently and not being completely scripted all the time, although i can't find an exact quote on what they said it was going to be like.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"You can play the game for your entire natural human lifetime and still not see all of it."

That would actually suck, I want to play more than 1 game in my lifetime.

 

[bj00rn_]

"You can play the game for your entire natural human lifetime and still not see all of it."

That would actually suck, I want to play more than 1 game in my lifetime.

Who's stopping you?

 

[Almighty]

That's a industry issue though. PR speak loves to leave things exaggerated, but also vague enough so that your imagination fills in the blanks.

Like the settlement system, for example. It sounds great IMO, but when it turns out that only 3 out the 12 spots allow for more than a Skyrim Hearthfire size house dreams will be crushed. They leave it vague enough so you think "Can I build an entire city?", but when the game comes out and you can't do anything close to that they're like "Well you said it, not us.".

True and I don't want to make it sound like I think Bethesda are the only ones. There is a reason I generally don't put much stock into pre-release info/hype these days.

The 200 endings was how they said it would be, though. It was quite clear (at least the quote i found was) that he meant there would be over 200 different combinations at the ending, not actually 200 different endings. As far as i know Oblivion's Radiant AI was also how they said it would be with NPCS having 'lives', reacting to things differently and not being completely scripted all the time, although i can't find an exact quote on what they said it was going to be like.

Yeah i can't speak about what he did or didn't mean with Fallout 3's ending as Oblivion burned me enough that I didn't really pay attention to the Fallout 3 pre-release hype. With that said I remember the Radiant AI they showed off before Oblivion released was much more robust then what we got in the final version was. Either way it all goes back to my keeping expectations low though. I never said they outright lied about what is or isn't in the game just that they hyped it up like most PR does and if you keep your expectations low when you hear "200 endings" or "Amazing AI" or "Infinite quests" then it all seems to work out.

 

[randomengine]

Technically, you can play just about any game for 400 hours and not see everything.

 

[AnyoneInCherno]

He's not saying he's played 400hrs of unique content, he's saying after playing 400hrs there is still some new stuff popping up.

Exactly. I got over 1100 hours out of Skyrim. 700 hours into the game I found a few new areas. So you could copy and paste the quote and just replace 400 with 700, in my case.

 

[prag16]

This is madness. Who the fuck is holding the gun to your head while you're playing your games. Why are you playing big games if you don't want to play them. And not the least why on earth do you want to stop playing a game that you enjoy playing.. What craziness is this..

"Stop disliking what I like."

This is reductive and a straw man.

I'm allowed to wish for games that otherwise seem interesting to me to discard superfluous crap that makes games "big" so that I can get through it in less than 100+ hours.

As others have said, 40-50 hours is typically where I start to run out of gas.

 

[KorrZ]

"Stop disliking what I like."

This is reductive and a straw man.

I'm allowed to wish for games that otherwise seem interesting to me to discard superfluous crap that makes games "big" so that I can get through it in less than 100+ hours.

As others have said, 40-50 hours is typically where I start to run out of gas.

You do know that for most RPGs and bigger games in general that you can just play the story right? That usually ends up being in the 30-50 hour range so perhaps you should stick to that. Side quests are "side" for a reason. It's not superflous just because you don't like it.

 

[Perfect Cha0s]

"Stop disliking what I like."

This is reductive and a straw man.

I'm allowed to wish for games that otherwise seem interesting to me to discard superfluous crap that makes games "big" so that I can get through it in less than 100+ hours.

As others have said, 40-50 hours is typically where I start to run out of gas.

If it's superfluous crap, and you run out of steam in 50 hours, why does it even matter that it's there? Just don't play the superfluous crap. If you get a stupid fluff quest, just don't do it.

 

[Lord of Castamere]

"Stop disliking what I like."

This is reductive and a straw man.

I'm allowed to wish for games that otherwise seem interesting to me to discard superfluous crap that makes games "big" so that I can get through it in less than 100+ hours.

As others have said, 40-50 hours is typically where I start to run out of gas.

Stop doing the "superfluous crap" then. No one is forcing you to do it. No Western AAA RPG in years has taken more than 60 hours to push through the main story alone.

 

[Tigress]

That's a industry issue though. PR speak loves to leave things exaggerated, but also vague enough so that your imagination fills in the blanks.

Like the settlement system, for example. It sounds great IMO, but when it turns out that only 3 out the 12 spots allow for more than a Skyrim Hearthfire size house dreams will be crushed. They leave it vague enough so you think "Can I build an entire city?", but when the game comes out and you can't do anything close to that they're like "Well you said it, not us.".

Who actually expects to build a whole city? The impression I got was that it would be a small village. Maybe the problem here is that some of you hype it up more than what was said.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

Who actually expects to build a whole city? The impression I got was that it would be a small village. Maybe the problem here is that some of you hype it up more than what was said.

I just re-watched the e3 video and from what was shown there I get the feeling that it's going to be more like building large forts and trading between them but also attracting settlers to the area. Kind of like back in the olden days. I don't know if you have full control over the whole settlement yet but what the video showed that you had control over looked pretty boss.

 

[prag16]

You do know that for most RPGs and bigger games in general that you can just play the story right? That usually ends up being in the 30-50 hour range so perhaps you should stick to that. Side quests are "side" for a reason. It's not superflous just because you don't like it.

If it's superfluous crap, and you run out of steam in 50 hours, why does it even matter that it's there? Just don't play the superfluous crap. If you get a stupid fluff quest, just don't do it.

Stop doing the "superfluous crap" then. No one is forcing you to do it. No Western AAA RPG in years has taken more than 60 hours to push through the main story alone.

It often makes the games feel unfocused and less fun. And I do have a slight touch of OCD which makes just ignoring all the shit tossed at me a bit harder. To each his own I guess.

 

[Crossing Eden]

People saying he lies all the time really doesn't make much sense. I know what the things people say he's supposedly lied about are, and none of them were actual lies (that i know of). It seems more like people just assumed he meant something far better than he really did. Skyrim does have an infinite amount of quests, even though it means playing similar ones many times, there's still no end to them.

You also gotta love how neither of those two videos disproved anything he stated.

this thread is a carnival show. Project lead, who isn't Todd Howard, is asked an interview question for OXM and responds with that he's spent 400 hours with the game and is still finding new things.

Cynical people intentionally interpret that negatively with the absolute most tenuous justification for it, often as a vehicle to shoehorn in 'concerns' that mostly just seem like senseless complaining from my perspective. Some of these people are under the impression that that's a Todd Howard quote when it's not. Some of these people are under the impression that the guy stated there's 400 hours of checklist content, when that's not exactly what he said. Some people are willing to define that content without having seen any of it, in order to justify their cynicism in a roundabout manner. Some of these people have
on purpose
willingly
forgotten that Fallout is a game that many people replay and continue to replay for years, often finding new things they hadn't seen in their first, second, or third playthroughs.

I'm in a thread full of people suggesting that the suggestion by the project lead that Fallout 4 (a game Bethesda has worked on for three or four years now, a game that serves as the main show for the biggest push into EA/Acti/Ubisoft-like household relevance that they've ever made) is an expansive game with lots of things to see, is a bad thing, and it's got my mind blown, dawg.

There's no way my first playthrough of Fallout 4 will last 400 hours unless I become some sort of settlement kingpin but when I play Fallout 4 again in 2017 you'd better believe I'll be glad to journey across the wasteland, taking a new path and discovering things I hadn't noticed before. I'll be glad to be on GAF or elsewhere, hearing other people's stories about their journeys through the wasteland, thinking to myself, "wow, I didn't get to see or do THAT, I might have to go down that path next time I play, or next time I start a new character). If you're intimidated by the prospect of a video game with so much content that you might not see it all, guess what? Do I even need to say it? Go play Infamous or Doom or something. And if you're truly concerned that the content filling the game might not be all that great, I at least implore you to judge the game based on its own merits as more information comes out about it, rather than assuming the worst about a pretty benign and sensible quote plucked from an interview in order to fill your cynicism quotas.

Amazing post.

 

[Tigress]

It often makes the games feel unfocused and less fun. And I do have a slight touch of OCD which makes just ignoring all the shit tossed at me a bit harder. To each his own I guess.

Problem is what you are asking for is to change the game in a way that is opposite of what a lot of RPG fans want in these games. For something that you could do without them changing the game (Just not play the side quests). Should we all suffer because you have a harder time resisting not doing extra content? Or maybe you should find different type games that cater more to that (linear games that are usually pretty quick).

I don't ask that linear games be longer. I enjoy them for what they are (But yes, I also don't value them as much in general but I'm not asking they change it, they're just not my favorite type games. I'm not really their market).

 

[Solid Samus]

No. It's a legitimate complaint. Maybe all 400 of those hours are full of tons of rich variety with no bland filler. But I somehow doubt it. As I said, some people aren't able to devote that much time to playing games. Unless it's absolutely fucking incredible, I don't want to spend 100+ hours on one playthrough of the same game these days, period. Even if the game is generally good/fun.

|
|
v

If you're intimidated by the prospect of a video game with so much content that you might not see it all, guess what? Do I even need to say it? Go play Infamous or Doom or something. And if you're truly concerned that the content filling the game might not be all that great, I at least implore you to judge the game based on its own merits as more information comes out about it, rather than assuming the worst about a pretty benign and sensible quote plucked from an interview in order to fill your cynicism quotas.

 

[Tigress]

Ok, for those who are complaining about an RPG having too much content and that it should be a lot shorter, this would be like me going to a FPS game and complaining there was too much gunplay and they really should have less gun shooting.

The game being long with lots of sidequests and extra stuff you can do is a staple of RPGs. If that really annoys you, then maybe RPGs aren't for you.

 

[Oogedei]

It's absolutely okay to dislike long games but there are two things you have to realize here:

1. You could just play the main missions and finish it pretty quick. No disadvantage for you when there's some extra content for those who might enjoy playing it for another 100 hours. This extra content doesn't ruin your way of playing this game since it is possible to ignore every sidequest and still finish the story in 20 hours or whatever. Others benefit from the special content. That's a win win situation where nobody loses.

2. I love to debate but there is something I totally dislike. Using excuses to shit on something. Yeah, let's discuss about whether long games are good or bad but don't use every goddamn mini news to shit on Bethesda or any other company. Sadly that's what many people here are doing in every Fallout thread. I would love to discuss about things like" will fallout benefit from this new village building system" but so many just want to stress how shitty Bethesda is according to them and that the first games were so much better yada yada. They use these news to make illogical points with the same conclusion every time.

 

[140.85]

"Oh cool, i haven't explored this place yet."

> Earnings clipboard
> Wonderglue

:/

Spoiler

I'm sure 4 will be fun though

 

[VisceralBowl]

"Oh cool, i haven't explored this place yet."

> Earnings clipboard
> Wonderglue

:/

Don't worry! You can build a knife now!

 

[Oogedei]

"Oh cool, i haven't explored this place yet."

> Earnings clipboard
> Wonderglue

:/

Spoiler

I'm sure 4 will be fun though

Haha! Honestly, I doubt that there will ever be as many clipboards in the real world as you find in the Fallout games.

 

[On Demand]

this thread is a carnival show. Project lead, who isn't Todd Howard, is asked an interview question for OXM and responds with that he's spent 400 hours with the game and is still finding new things.

Cynical people intentionally interpret that negatively with the absolute most tenuous justification for it, often as a vehicle to shoehorn in 'concerns' that mostly just seem like senseless complaining from my perspective. Some of these people are under the impression that that's a Todd Howard quote when it's not. Some of these people are under the impression that the guy stated there's 400 hours of checklist content, when that's not exactly what he said. Some people are willing to define that content without having seen any of it, in order to justify their cynicism in a roundabout manner. Some of these people have
on purpose
willingly
forgotten that Fallout is a game that many people replay and continue to replay for years, often finding new things they hadn't seen in their first, second, or third playthroughs.

I'm in a thread full of people suggesting that the suggestion by the project lead that Fallout 4 (a game Bethesda has worked on for three or four years now, a game that serves as the main show for the biggest push into EA/Acti/Ubisoft-like household relevance that they've ever made) is an expansive game with lots of things to see, is a bad thing, and it's got my mind blown, dawg.

There's no way my first playthrough of Fallout 4 will last 400 hours unless I become some sort of settlement kingpin but when I play Fallout 4 again in 2017 you'd better believe I'll be glad to journey across the wasteland, taking a new path and discovering things I hadn't noticed before. I'll be glad to be on GAF or elsewhere, hearing other people's stories about their journeys through the wasteland, thinking to myself, "wow, I didn't get to see or do THAT, I might have to go down that path next time I play, or next time I start a new character). If you're intimidated by the prospect of a video game with so much content that you might not see it all, guess what? Do I even need to say it? Go play Infamous or Doom or something. And if you're truly concerned that the content filling the game might not be all that great, I at least implore you to judge the game based on its own merits as more information comes out about it, rather than assuming the worst about a pretty benign and sensible quote plucked from an interview in order to fill your cynicism quotas.

DUDE!!!!!

I always sporadically go back and play Fallout 3 and last summer, i think it was on July 4th, i had the urge to play for few hours. So i'm roaming around and i come up on the Arlington Cemetery. Cool, i've been here before, no big deal. But further roaming and see a house in the middle and i think to myself i've probably been in there. I go inside and check the map and it's blank! Searching i find the usual loot, i then go down into the basement and search for more loot. I turn the corner and gasps. I found this-

A shrine of lincoln.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Arlington_House

Some might say what's the big deal, but playing a game for 200 hours and randomly playing it again and still finding stuff you haven't seen is a great feeling and kind of nuts itself.

It is definitely possible to play Bethesda's rpg's for hundreds of hours and discover new stuff. So i don't see why, Jeff Gardiner's, comment is hard to believe.


Excellent post by the way.

 

[inked_illusion]

yeah but does it have good writing though?

 

[VicDaMoan03]

Obsidian is great and all but honestly their job wa basically the same as any modders job. They had a engine, dev tools, and other assets provided to them. They did a great job no doubt about that.

 

[Solid Samus]

Obsidian is great and all but honestly their job wa basically the same as any modders job. They had a engine, dev tools, and other assets provided to them. They did a great job no doubt about that.

That's insanely reductive. It's a miracle that Obsidian was able to put together such a cohesive world backed by boundless roleplaying possibility in just a year and a half. What they accomplished goes way beyond something that could be compared to modder's work.

 

[Lakitu]

"Oh cool, i haven't explored this place yet."

> Earnings clipboard
> Wonderglue

:/

Spoiler

I'm sure 4 will be fun though

What? I have a giant collection of clipboards. Possibly over 500. Love picking them up and putting them all over the place.

 

[Two Words]

360 of those hours is decorating his settlement.

 

[UberLevi]

Fanbase wants Fallout 4 announced.
Undergoes development for years and years in secret.
Crazy reveal of game after nearly 5 years without a Fallout.
"Kind of a huge game".
Nobody believes them.
GAF, man.

 

[blurr]

That sounds like it is heading in the right direction, exploration was the essence of Fallout 3, had such an amazing time. I sure hope the level cap is higher than 20 because Death Claws x__x

 

[Lakitu]

That sounds like it is heading in the right direction, exploration was the essence of Fallout 3, had such an amazing time. I sure hope the level cap is higher than 20 because Death Claws x__x

The level cap has to be higher this time because of them combining skills with perks.

 

[ugh_the_boot]

OH MY GOD IS THAT ROCK NEW

Hahaha!

 

[Perfect Cha0s]

The level cap has to be higher this time because of them combining skills with perks.

It's at least 50 (look at the level on the bottom of the screen):

 

[Lakitu]

It's at least 50 (look at the level on the bottom of the screen):

Oh, good spot. Excellent.

 

[block tower]

not even cool. i have a life, no way i can even sink that much time into one game. itll probably take me six months at least to finish the main quests and a lot of the side quests.

 

[MattyG]

It's at least 50 (look at the level on the bottom of the screen):

I wouldn't be suprised if there was no cap, post-patch Skyrim style.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

If there is a Level Cap again, I expect it will be 50. Maybe going over that with expansion packs.

 

[aravuus]

Yeah, it's probably 50

Would love having no cap, though. WRPGs tend to have a limited amount of exp you can possibly get during a playthrough anyway due to non-respawning enemies (can't recall how it is with most Bethesda games, tho?), I don't quite understand the reason for a level cap in them.

 

[Lakitu]

Yeah, it's probably 50

Would love having no cap, though. WRPGs tend to have a limited amount of exp you can possibly get during a playthrough anyway due to non-respawning enemies (can't recall how it is with most Bethesda games, tho?), I don't quite understand the reason for a level cap in them.

Fallout, enemies don't respawn in 'dungeons' but there are random encounters all over the wasteland.
Elder Scrolls, enemies respawn every 3 days I think (in dungeons) and there are random encounters.

 

[KORNdoggy]

they made similar lofty claims for the likes of skyrim and fallout 3 and i saw everything (completed every quest and visited every location on the map) in way under what they were claiming. so i'm not expecting this at all. i'm expecting around 120 hours tops. 400 if you stare at every wall for 5 minutes. lol

 

[TheVoidDragon]

they made similar lofty claims for the likes of skyrim and fallout 3 and i saw everything (completed every quest and visited every location on the map) in way under what they were claiming. so i'm not expecting this at all. i'm expecting around 120 hours tops. 400 if you stare at every wall for 5 minutes. lol

I doubt that they're not saying it will take 400 hours to visit every location and do every quest, though. Nothing suggests this means the game has 400 hours of content.