I wouldn't compare procedural and hand crafted world though, but I suppose that's just me.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
You can play Fallout 4 for 400 hours without seeing everything
- Thread starter VlaudTheImpaler
- Start date
I wouldn't compare procedural and hand crafted world though, but I suppose that's just me.
Yeah, sorry, the procedurally generated planets of No Man's Sky don't really compare to crafted RPG worlds with heaps of story.
You're a braver soul then most, I lasted about an hour.
| Praxis |
Banned
I still like them though, to a point. My problem isn't with the game but more my stage of life/mindset and playing time.
I didn't mention completing them, I haven't completed a Fallout game since 2, as I lose interest, but I have played and enjoyed 3 and New Vegas for around 60 hours each before not picking them up again.
I used to play a lot of Final Fantasy games, the original Fallout games (repeatedly and not all the way through every time) Vagrant Story. I had much more patience and free time back then. I didn't have a job, pregnant wife, dogs or a house to take care of. I could play a game from the minute I woke up until I went to bed. That doesn't explain my attention span though, I'm not really sure about that. I hear other people my age having similar issues on gaming podcasts, so I guess it's just a thing for some gamers and getting older.
Edit: I should have added I have more money to spend on games now, my mum would never buy me games as a rule, so every game I bought I paid for myself and as you can imagine, that wasn't many games very often so I didn't have the crazy amount of options I do now.
You mean the game people are gonna play for an hour before the novelty likely wears off? I'm hugely skeptical that game will be as amazing as the internet wants it to be.
Sure. However, unless they have a magic source of resources them saying 400 hours implies it being heavy on the random stuff. Who knows, maybe they do have 200 hours of meaty content, but it is doubtful considering their past performance.
One should definitely not. The procedural will come out looking kind of weak. NMS is amazing but definitely isn't trying to replicate what those others are attempting to do.
Diseased Yak
Gold Member
Exactly, same here. Thousands of hours for me in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout series, still can play them and find new stuff.
Yeah I know and I would admit that the comparison is silly. But if everything goes right then I think NMS will be one of the first games that will exceed hand crafted worlds with its procedural generated stuff in the matter of unique locations and look. Of course hand crafted worlds will still be superior in respect of quests, NPCs, triggered events etc. and nobody saying anything against that. I have big respect for all those hundreds guys and girls that working their ass off to give us a believable and detailed world for these big budget games. And I can't wait to see what Bethesda has created for us in the new Fallout.
What portion of that content will be meaningful?
I am getting tired of games that just use a random quest generator to stretch out the game time.
And if it is anything like Skyrim, you will just be an OP killing maghine after 50 hours, and the rest of th fights will be watching life bars go down super fast.
I am getting tired of games that just use a random quest generator to stretch out the game time.
And if it is anything like Skyrim, you will just be an OP killing maghine after 50 hours, and the rest of th fights will be watching life bars go down super fast.
Vincent Grayson
Member
No, you're right, the comparison isn't worthwhile.
That said, the whole dick-measuring contest as far as world size even in hand-crafted worlds is incredibly overdone and I wish everyone would stop focusing so much on an arbitrary statistic that tells you nothing about the game beyond "how far can I walk?"
They had the basic procedually generated quests in Skyrim with the explanation that this would let them put more effort into the less mundane quests. Problem is, it didn't turn out that way either, since the game had to be rushed out and tons of quest content was either cut (like the civil war which has tons of stuff still in the game data but deactivated) or not finished. The thieves guild quest line was the only one that felt reasonably finished. I mean, it was so bad that The Companions didn't even get an actual antiagonist character, but rather some generic unnamed bandits with a werewolf vendetta. Made it all the more laughable when an important faction NPC dies, and they try to make it emotional without any actual developed character to attribute it to for a proper showdown.
Skyrim was the first TES to hit its originally announced release date without delays, so of course there was going to be a catch along with that. Wondering if Fallout 4 will turn out the same way.
Lord of Castamere
Member
Eh. You could do the exact same thing for Bloodborne and The Witcher 3. That standpoint only really works if you consider all modern open world games that have bugs to be shit. Games have bugs, also News At 11.
Solid Samus
Banned
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.
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.
texhnolyze
Banned
I do replay Fallout 3 & New Vegas for years after their release.
However, I don't replay them because I've already finished the games, but because I always get bored in the middle of the game and decided to make a fresh playthrough with different choices and paths instead; just to get bored in another 10 hours or so later. Games are totally worth the money, but I hope they can hold my interest to actually finish them. It also applies to Oblivion & Skyrim which I haven't finished yet.
I did finish Gothic 3, Kingdom of Amalur, DA Inquisition and Witcher 3 as comparison. They're huge games as well, but they have limited side quests & activities. You'll definitely reach that point where you've already finished all of the side activities and can safely end the game. As a completionist, I just won't be able to finish Bethesda's RPGs anymore.
However, I don't replay them because I've already finished the games, but because I always get bored in the middle of the game and decided to make a fresh playthrough with different choices and paths instead; just to get bored in another 10 hours or so later. Games are totally worth the money, but I hope they can hold my interest to actually finish them. It also applies to Oblivion & Skyrim which I haven't finished yet.
I did finish Gothic 3, Kingdom of Amalur, DA Inquisition and Witcher 3 as comparison. They're huge games as well, but they have limited side quests & activities. You'll definitely reach that point where you've already finished all of the side activities and can safely end the game. As a completionist, I just won't be able to finish Bethesda's RPGs anymore.
Retromelon
Member
Too real to go unquoted
VlaudTheImpaler
tl;dr
If you lived near me I would have you over for a beer and a meal, (my wife is an amazing cook).
I said this in another thread but I'll post it here as well,
What I don't understand is all of the drive by posting going on. Why not realize that there are plenty (millions) of people who like this but your tastes have changed or you never really liked this type of game to begin with and just move on? Either that or give some legitimate constructive criticism of things you think could use improvement as long as it pertains to the design path that Bethesda (or any developer for that matter) has chosen for their game.
Why take part in any discussion if you are not actually going to give it some thought first?
Anyhow, back OT. On the front page I responded to someone who posted a good question but it got buried in all the knee jerk reactions so I will repost it here,
Also, This article is about the weather but in the video Todd also talks about world density and dynamic detail, telling small stories with the environment that aren't always fully fleshed out, leaving a lot to the players imagination while at the same time pulling you further into the world. It's worth a watch especially if you haven't heard anything about the weather.
VlaudTheImpaler
tl;dr
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Yes, a persons interest is subjective, no need to point that out.
you know what my number one pet peeve is? It's when people point to sales as some metric of quality. Yes, Skyrim sold a shit load, doesn't mean it's immune to criticism or god forbid a dissenting opinion.
My issue with skyrim are a few things. The combat was bad, the dungeon design was quite boring and repetitive in many areas, which is only compounded by it's combat and what you actually do in the dungeons. The quests never felt like they had much weight to the world, I felt like I wasn't the second coming of Christ, I felt like I was some random dude doing the busy work of the entire realm.
Bethesda has been critiqued by many as having poor dialogue and poor world building. Just look at the world of Fallout 3 and compare it to the world of Fallout: New Vegas, and the writing in both games. Bethesda is outclassed in both situations.
Thank you. I could not have said this better, especially the bolded parts but I like all of it. I've been trying to in this thread but I think you were a lot more elegant than all of my attempts.
LookAtMeGo
Member
I dont plan on seeing everything and I'm OK with that. If I can pop this in every once and a while for a few years and do new things every time I play? That is awesome.
As long as its not Ubisoft levels of "content". Bethesda has not disappointed me yet.
Edit: well except for that hot buggy mess that was Skyrim on PS3. I still loved the shit out of that game.
As long as its not Ubisoft levels of "content". Bethesda has not disappointed me yet.
Edit: well except for that hot buggy mess that was Skyrim on PS3. I still loved the shit out of that game.
This so much! Thank you!
It's the same with every Fallout thread here and it really gets annoying after a while. No matter what was said even when it's such a meaningless comment like "I haven't seen everything after 400 hours" people try to shit on it so hard..
It's just so unbelievable.
I understand that it is soooo horrible for you that Fallout 3 chose a different path and that you like F1, F2 and NV so much more but at some point you got to accept that they went for this path and that you have to let it go. There is no use in shitting on everything made by Bethesda just because of this. Honestly, it just makes you look like one of the worst sort of fanboys.
And then again most people don't get that nobody forces you to play every goddamn quest or that you don't have to discover every single thing in this game. When you want to have the 15hours main story line then you're able to play that and be done with this game. There are so many people wanting to dig deeper in this whole Fallout universe so I don't understand your problem really.
And as Solid Samus have stated it is awesome to play the games a few years later and to discover new things about the game. I did the same with New Vegas and that's one major point why I loved it.
Hell, I prefer New Vegas and think it is a far better game and I in general agree with the reasons why Vegas is better (though I loved 3 too. This says more about Vegas than 3). But I'm getting sick of all the Bethesda can't do right hate on here where anything said about fallout is an excuse to say how bad you think they are or that their fallout is.
If nothing else can you guys remember Vegas would never be the game it was without Bethesda even if you didn't like 3.
Sanctuary
Member
Completely agree. Although some would say "but, but that shouldn't count since their games were not as good!".
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1087749&highlight=
Big Green Anus
Member
I hope there's meaningful content like in Witcher 3. I'm not as excited for Fallout 4 then I thought, which is crazy since I LOVED(besides Metro system) Fallout 3 and New Vegas.
prag16
Banned
To me, that's a negative if anything. DA:I and to a much lesser extent Witcher 3 left a sour taste in my mouth with regard to this type of thing.
I just don't have time for 100+ hour "experiences", especially when a ton of the "content" is repetitive worthless nothing. Too many games to get through.
I just don't have time for 100+ hour "experiences", especially when a ton of the "content" is repetitive worthless nothing. Too many games to get through.
dead souls
Member
Agreed. I'd rather play 10 games for 10 hours, or 5 for 20 hours, than one for 100 hours.
Like the hat?
Banned
To be fair I was still finding new stuff in fallout 3 with over 300 hours, but a lot of that was redoing some things with new characters.
And I also want to remind people that The Witcher 3 is such a game where you could potentially spend hundreds of hours without seeing everything.
Cave Johnson
Member
What if the 100 hours had the variety, focus and scope of a well crafted 10 hour game?
MeinNeger.jpeg
In DA:I side content essentially replaces level grinding. You have to complete side missions to access story missions and play through story missions to unlock more side missions. Witcher 3 kind of works this way as well although the side content is more meaningful. This sort of thing can usually be avoided in Bethesda games. Due to the way level scaling works you can pretty much do anything in any order, so a run through of nothing but the story is entirely doable if that's all you want to experience. This makes their games a lot more replayable since you can just play through quests that feel appropriate to the character you want to role play and it doesn't make the experience feel any less complete when you're ready to move on.
/thread
dead souls
Member
I've never found that to be the case in all the long games I've played over the years. Somewhere around 40-50 hours in even the best games I am totally ready for it to end.
TheVoidDragon
Member
400 hours is quite a long time, although he isn't clear on what sort of thing he's only just found. It could be anything, really.
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.
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.
Big Green Anus
Member
Cave Johnson
Member
It was a hypothetical scenario.
God, totally opposite of me. What I want in a game is one that I get so immersed in and involved in I don't even notice the time slip away. I want a game I can play for more than 100 hours and be totally entertained/immersed. I want a game that has me just wanting to play that game for a while.
Games that are short and feel like they should be short are fun to play but not ones I fall in love with. I want to get into the world and really feel like I'm part of it. Games that are short just don't get you involved enough to be like that.
The only short game I'd actually think was worth 60 bux was The Last of Us. Otherwise I consider short games as time wasters that are worth a small amount of money and can be fun for a short time, btu they're not the games I look forward to or want to buy day one. They're the games I get when, "Well, I got nothing else going on and it was cheap".
There are many of us with that opinion, which is one of the reasons why Witcher 3 is so popular. It's good at keeping the momentum up. 120 hours in W3 now, and still loving it. Can't be bothered to play another game yet.
I don't get why people complain about "too big games" when obviously RPGs like these are built for people to optionally play as many or few hours as they feel like. Why should RPGs cater only for those with a short attention span when obviously they tend to draw in people who want to spend more time with a single game? It doesn't make much sense really, it's entitlement gone wild.
It might of been better. I mean the way I see it New Vegas was great because Obsidian made it and not because they had Bethesda's mediocre tech to build off of/work with. The game would of been very different in this hypothetical situation(my guess probably more like the first 2 games) but it probably would of still been great in all the areas I care about.
Yeah they don't outright lie they just like to exaggerate which maybe is some kind of lie? I don't know. Anyway I do think someone can play 400 hours and run across something they have never seen before. I just have my doubts to how interesting that something is going to be.
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.
TheVoidDragon
Member
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.
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.
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.
Badmotorfinger
Member
I've Played 220 hours of Fallout:New Vegas and havent seen everything...
I can live with that
I can live with that