• Why Fallout isn't Fallout
    25 replies, posted
[video=youtube;amtsN-NRqwM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amtsN-NRqwM[/video]
tbh there's like 20 of these 20-40 minute videos about fallout and they're all pretty well made but essentially all say the same thing just with different levels of vitriol to F3/F4 and slightly different stances on the "authenticity" of New Vegas [editline]17th October 2017[/editline] but you still occasionally learn a new thing from each of them so they're not like a complete waste of time
I feel like this subject has been drained of all interesting value by now because they all repeat each other so god damn much And they all tend to have this extra tinge of pretentiousness with trying to label a series that by design has never shied away from taking risky steps and venturing into new genres. Even the first game was designed as a significant deviation from the typical CRPG of the era and the second one aimed to achieve a completely different feel and philosophy. Trying to pin what "is" and "isn't" Fallout is dumb and hugely misleading.
really tired of reading this sentence lol
[QUOTE=Rudevinny;52787463]I'm a pretty rabid fan of the first two games and I weep at a photo of the canceled Fallout 3 every night, but whomever's making these kinds of videos is just beating a [U]dead horse [/U] at this point. With a super sledge.[/QUOTE] *dead brahmin
The Bethesda Fallout games aren't Fallout, but they can be. New Vegas proved that. I just wish Bethesda learned more from it, instead of taking F4 into the opposite direction
These are the video game equivalent of iPhone destruction on tech channels. I will never understand how someone can produce such ridiculously long video essays although this video is pretty short compared to some
Yadda yadda, over done subject. I will say though, I'm playing Fallout 3 using TTW and I'm surprised how much better it is even with no other mods. Didn't think that New Vegas' gameplay was that massive of a change, but I'm really finding it much more enjoyable. Still doesn't fix the terrible story though.
[QUOTE=Rudevinny;52787463]I'm a pretty rabid fan of the first two games and I weep at a photo of the canceled Fallout 3 every night, but whomever's making these kinds of videos is just beating a dead horse at this point. With a super sledge.[/QUOTE] in the groin, with 255 melee weapons skill
I'd be the first to say that Bethesda's fallout titles miss the point but this focus on 'authenticity' is basically doing the same. This video, and the hundreds like it make lots of very solid points, and I always find myself strongly agreeing with them. However I also always feel like they focus too hard on authenticity to the originals as the ultimate measure of success instead of examining [i] what those games did better[/i] from a more objective standpoint. While much of what makes Fallout nv a superior game to fallout 3/4 appears to be due to similarities with the original games, that's not because it was closer to the original games and therefore had some kind of infallible magic ingredient and deviating from them ensures a bad experience, but because it actually handled the setting well on it's own merits. Fallout 3 was the first fallout game I played, It was one of my favourite games ever but from Bethesda's portrayal I never really cared about the setting enough to play the original games until I played New Vegas, because I had no idea what I was missing. Change is often a good thing, I greatly prefer the open world exploration RPG gameplay of 3/4/NV to that of the original turn based Isometric games- and that's one of the most radical changes the series has seen, IMO one of the biggest failings of fallout 4 is that it didn't change things up enough from fallout 3. Doing things differently Isn't the problem, Doing things badly is. It's like claiming the Star Wars prequels weren't Star Wars movies and focusing all critique on how different they are from the original trilogy instead of exactly what they did wrong.
TLDR for all of these kinda videos "Fallout 1-2 good, Fallout 3-4 bad, New Vegas good" It's getting kinda tiring to listen to the same statement every time
i played fallout 4 and liked it a lot before i actually truly played fallout new vegas, because i couldn't beforehand on account of the complete shit gunplay new vegas has to offer. but when i did, even before starting any of the DLCs, i felt myself starting to get angry that bethesda learned not a damn thing from new vegas for fallout 4, and after i beat all the DLCs i concluded NV was the best game i ever played and that it was nothing except shameful that bethesda took not a single note from it fallout 4 did a 180 and went in the completely opposite direction with the trailer focusing more on "let's fuck some shit up" with the teddy bear hat or something
[QUOTE=Darth_Kris;52788039]TLDR for all of these kinda videos "Fallout 1-2 good, Fallout 3-4 bad, New Vegas good" It's getting kinda tiring to listen to the same statement every time[/QUOTE] I can tell you didn't watch the video! This guy is so pedantic he doesn't even like New Vegas.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52787885]The Bethesda Fallout games aren't Fallout, but they can be. New Vegas proved that. I just wish Bethesda learned more from it, instead of taking F4 into the opposite direction[/QUOTE] Fallout 4 has more problems than just not being Fallout enough though. Shit, there were quests in Elder Scrolls Online that felt deeper and more narrative driven than a lot of Fallout 4.
Fallout 3 and 4's problems don't have to with them being Fallout games, it has to do with them being just not that great in general. When Obsidian can come along and do something significantly better in 18 months on a shit engine after having to cut out a significant amount of content from their original design documents, that say something about Bethesda.
Funny that the thing he complains about in New Vegas (the skill checks being shown in dialog) is easily removable with a [url=https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/62051/?]mod[/url].
[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;52791287]Funny that the thing he complains about in New Vegas (the skill checks being shown in dialog) is easily removable with a [URL="https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/62051/?"]mod[/URL].[/QUOTE] IMHO skill checks being visible isn't a problem, I for one just find the skill system in New Vegas to be kind of bothersome. [I]n1[/I] Mostly due in part with skills being set made into percentages instead of a solid rank like one would see in Fallout 4. What can you pick with 5% Lockpick in New Vegas? Barely anything, It's until atleast level 25% Lockpick, that you can pick open a safe that isn't " Very Easy " . The whole skill percentages system felt very redundant because I would usually be 1 or 4 points away from the actual Skill [ X ] percentage 25 or 30. Something that gets fixed in Fallout 4 where you don't have to worry about not having enough Skill [ X ] %, now you can get to Skill [ X ] Rank 2 or 4 and now you can pick a safe better or pick open more advanced safes. [I]n1[/I] - Keep in mind I've only played Fallout 4 and New Vegas I cannot speak for earlier titles like the original 2 or Fallout 3
Fallout 3 had the exact same lockpick system as New Vegas and yes it was pretty shitty then how lockpicking was basically just a point dump that kind of forced you to minmax if you wanted access to those specific locked doors. Fallout 1 and 2 had RNG-based lockpicking so having skills go from 1% to 255% made more sense. NV feels like it doesn't really benefit particularly from the skill system, just from good design in general. There's nothing that NV does that couldn't have been achieved by Fallout 4's own system, but Obsidian just handles these sorts of things better than Bethesda usually.
I still would've preferred something like Lockpicking being expanded into a "Sleight of Hand" skill or something than doing away with it completely. Have it directly affect your chances to steal objects without being noticed, skill checks for anything that needs deft hands and gate off harder locks still. Then there's use to putting partial points in it, even if you don't hit the threshold for the next tier of locks.
To be perfectly honest I'll take a game with as little RNG as humanly possible any time. Bethesda's pretty fucking schizophrenic when it comes to this sort of stuff as they tend to push more player agency over RNG in some aspects but also just push for random outcomes with other aspects of gameplay, with seemingly no particular reasoning between the two.
I can understand the lore arguments in these videos, but it doesn't really change the fact that I find the gameplay in the newer Fallouts so much more enjoyable. And I have tried to enjoy the older ones, I install Fallout 1 or 2 every so often with the intention of finally finishing it but I always get bored before I even get properly started. I've read all of the lore though, and still sometimes go back to reading it, but the newer games are what define Fallout for me personally.
[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;52795210]I still would've preferred something like Lockpicking being expanded into a "Sleight of Hand" skill or something than doing away with it completely. Have it directly affect your chances to steal objects without being noticed, skill checks for anything that needs deft hands and gate off harder locks still. Then there's use to putting partial points in it, even if you don't hit the threshold for the next tier of locks.[/QUOTE] Personally, I've always been a fan of how Oblivion did lockpicking (and I prefer Oblivion's idea for a lockpicking minigame). Do away with the discrete Boolean logic of lockpicking ("What's that? Your skill is 24? Well, this lock requires skill 25, so [b]FUCK OFF, NOOB![/b]"), and instead design the minigame such that it can utilize a difficulty spectrum. The farther above a lock's skill is, the more difficult the minigame is, to the point where it's effectively impossible to succeed - but you can still try. If a person with 0 Lockpicking wants to try picking a Level 100 lock, then go right ahead - just don't be surprised if the lockpicking window only exists for a single frame. I'm not saying to necessarily resurrect Oblivion's pin-tumbler system (though I do think that's a more interesting lockpicking system than the "find the sweet-spot and turn" that Fallout 3 and 4 introduced). A system like Bioshock 1's hacking, for example, could work, too. Just [b]something[/b] that allows for a seamless sliding scale of difficulty.
Videos like this are funny, because back in the day people argued (and probably still do) on forums about how Fallout 2 was an affront to the good name of the original because it had references to Monty Python and South Park in it.
[QUOTE=megafat;52789852]Fallout 3 and 4's problems don't have to with them being Fallout games, it has to do with them being just not that great in general. When Obsidian can come along and do something significantly better in 18 months on a shit engine after having to cut out a significant amount of content from their original design documents, that say something about Bethesda.[/QUOTE] I may be late but Bethesda set up an entire game engine, tools, assets and who knows what else for them and Obsidian just added the content. It's really unfair to Bethesda to discredit them like that. Bethesda is always breaking ground (as far as they're concerned) technically. I'm sure if they made a FO5 right now changing next to nothing about FO4, you'd see the cool RPG experience everyone's been looking forwards to. There are priorities to be taken into account when developing an entirely new game on a overhauled if familiar engine with plenty of new ideas.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.