Fallout Thread V26: At least it's not a Nuclear Winter - Games

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50124875]The problem I have is that some people seem to dislike the game "on principle". If you enjoy the game for what it is, what's the point of then saying you don't like it because it fails on a completely different list of criteria that didn't actually impact your experience at first ? [editline]13th April 2016[/editline] Maybe that's because people are willing to deal with some bugs and bad story if they can still have a good experience on every other level. I've seen more people relentlessly bash Bethesda for their flaws (despite otherwise liking the games) than any other big developer out there.[/QUOTE] Maybe because Bethesda games tend to have more flaws than any other big developer out there?? Look at the releases of AC Unity and FO4, both had arguably the same amount of bugs and glitches but whereas AC gets rightfully blasted for releasing an unfinished product, FO4 gets showered with 9/10's across the board. Fixed up Fallout 4 is still a mess of a game, release Fallout 4 shouldn't have gotten anything higher than a 5 from any halfway discerning reviewer

[QUOTE=Beacon;50124059]you absolutely cannot use the fact that the devs let you mod the game (which a lot of devs don't even do) as a reason they shouldn't be charging for their own DLC, come on if you don't think it's worth the price, don't buy it?...[/QUOTE] I never said devs shouldn't charge for dlc, but that they shouldn't make paid dlc that feels like a halfassed mod. The dlc didn't add anything new to the game except cages to catch animals, and OMG NEON LIGHTS! It barely expanded on something already in the game as opposed to hearthfire, same price but it actually added new things, and had story, new characters, if a bit limited just like the automatron. Also, already have the season pass, so no can do with not buying.

Play-through 3 ahoy! [t]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/456362427319546710/1D57302BD7265A31164F8BCD1275BEF16CF37D65/[/t] Decided to try and role-play within the confines of the established story a little more this time instead of trying to buck it. Nate was a poster-boy war hero, Appearing on enlistment posters and commercials, as well as the front lines- but was secretly fast-tracked for an honourable discharge for a relatively minor injury after higher ups became suspicious that the amount times this "real life action hero!" interpreted orders loosely to end conflicts more peacefully, taking prisoners instead of eliminating enemy combatants- would start to sway public opinion in favour of peace, and risk accusations of communist sympathy in the ranks of the army. Rumors are still rife that this so called "model soldier" had serious moral objections to the war, and had to be dosed on psycho in order to kill. Nora was a hard as nails criminal enforcer, who had a fearsome reputation for using a custom built flame-thrower to solve underworld disputes- turned legendary lawyer as part of an experimental rehabilitation program, although it's always been rumoured the program was a smoke-screen for planting a lawyer sympathetic to the various syndicates in the legal system. They don't get on with the neighbours. Best I could think of with the plot I was given, with consideration as to how I plan to play my character and how I made them both look.

Do we know when survival will exit beta?

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50124875]The problem I have is that some people seem to dislike the game "on principle". If you enjoy the game for what it is, what's the point of then saying you don't like it because it fails on a completely different list of criteria that didn't actually impact your experience at first ?[/QUOTE] Just because you enjoy something doesn't make it good.

[QUOTE=AltF4 All Day;50124975]Maybe because Bethesda games tend to have more flaws than any other big developer out there?? Look at the releases of AC Unity and FO4, both had arguably the same amount of bugs and glitches but whereas AC gets rightfully blasted for releasing an unfinished product, FO4 gets showered with 9/10's across the board. Fixed up Fallout 4 is still a mess of a game, release Fallout 4 shouldn't have gotten anything higher than a 5 from any halfway discerning reviewer[/QUOTE] I started to rate my games by how many hours i spent in it vs how much it costs. If I get 1 hour of fun for every euros spent, it's a good game. I spent about 200 hours in the first month, and paid 50 euros. I don't care about small bugs here and there, graphics, or even the story. I had way more fun than I paid for and continue to do so, and that's good for me.

[QUOTE=AltF4 All Day;50124975]Maybe because Bethesda games tend to have more flaws than any other big developer out there?? Look at the releases of AC Unity and FO4, both had arguably the same amount of bugs and glitches but whereas AC gets rightfully blasted for releasing an unfinished product, FO4 gets showered with 9/10's across the board. Fixed up Fallout 4 is still a mess of a game, release Fallout 4 shouldn't have gotten anything higher than a 5 from any halfway discerning reviewer[/QUOTE] You'd have to be delusional to think Unity's release was similar to Fallout 4. Unity was literally unplayable when it came out. Bethesda's bugs are less and less common with each release and since Fallout 3 have, at least in my experience, always just been minor inconveniences, nothing game breaking.

[QUOTE=AltF4 All Day;50124975]Maybe because Bethesda games tend to have more flaws than any other big developer out there?? Look at the releases of AC Unity and FO4, both had arguably the same amount of bugs and glitches but whereas AC gets rightfully blasted for releasing an unfinished product, FO4 gets showered with 9/10's across the board. Fixed up Fallout 4 is still a mess of a game, release Fallout 4 shouldn't have gotten anything higher than a 5 from any halfway discerning reviewer[/QUOTE] The thing with FO4 (and Bethesda games in general) is that some people just don't experience the bugs. I've seen a lot of people bring up that the game is full of bugs, but I've only experienced a handful of bugs that weren't related to mods, and none of them were gamebreaking. The biggest bug I've found is the weapons not appearing when equipping them with a hotkey, and while I won't deny that it's a frustrating bug, it doesn't really break anything in the game. The rest of the bugs were either things that would be hard for Bethesda to really test (like getting stuck in certain places), or just can't be helped in a game of this scale. That said, FO4 is far from a perfect game. The performance is still worse than it should be, the dialogue system is a downgrade from previous games (though I wouldn't agree it's as bad as some people make out), and some of the systems are lacking in variety (weapons, clothes you can wear with armour, settlement objects, enemy types, unique weapons/armor). There's probably more things I could say about it, but I can't think of any right now. I still haven't really touched the main story yet, so maybe I'll feel different once I get into that, but I've enjoyed the time I've spent with the game so far and I'd say that it is a pretty good game. Probably a 7 or an 8 if I had to give it a rating.

[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;50125019]Just because you enjoy something doesn't make it good.[/QUOTE] You gotta learn to like things for what they do right, not to dislike them for what they do wrong. If Fallout 4 still had the trash combat and the boring worldspace and the terrible visuals of fallout 3, on top of losing its roleplaying elements, then yeah I'd be mad about the game. But the aspects it improved far outweigh the aspects it got worse by a mile.

Fallout 4 was pretty bug free compared to any other game Bethesda has put out in the past, comparing it to Unity is kind of silly. Now Fallout 3 on the other hand, that is a better comparison, considering each DLC they made was broken on release. [editline]13th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;50125079]You gotta learn to like things for what they do right, not to dislike them for what they do wrong.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying just because you like something doesn't mean it's implicitly good, just like how if you hate something it doesn't mean it's bad. [editline]13th April 2016[/editline] Like I really enjoy David Lynch's Dune, but I wouldn't call it a good movie.

[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;50125082]Fallout 4 was pretty bug free compared to any other game Bethesda has put out in the past, comparing it to Unity is kind of silly. Now Fallout 3 on the other hand, that is a better comparison, considering each DLC they made was broken on release. [editline]13th April 2016[/editline] Which is why you never stop talking about how much you love New Vegas.[/QUOTE] Yeah, fallout 3 for its defense only has the dialog and the freedom of roleplay, nothing else. It is incoherent and is a big fucking mess.. and those graphic... in 2008. CSS which released in 2003 was even more beautiful and stable than fallout 3. I tried to replay fallout 3 but.. i can't. I remember my first time playing fallout 3 (it was my first fallout) i loved it (being annoyed by the metro) but then i played fallout new vegas.. (quickly after i ended fallout 3) and i had already made 3 character in two month of playing it. Why does fallout 3 feel so .. different when you trie to replay it after NV? It's not like they are any different graphically..

[QUOTE=ApertureXS200;50125158]Yeah, fallout 3 for its defense only has the dialog and the freedom of roleplay, nothing else. It is incoherent and is a big fucking mess.. and those graphic... in 2008. CSS which released in 2003 was even more beautiful and stable than fallout 3. I tried to replay fallout 3 but.. i can't. I remember my first time playing fallout 3 (it was my first fallout) i loved it (being annoyed by the metro) but then i played fallout new vegas.. (quickly after i ended fallout 3) and i had already made 3 character in two month of playing it. Why does fallout 3 feel so .. different when you trie to replay it after NV? It's not like they are any different graphically..[/QUOTE] Different game design philosophies, really I think that is most of it.

Fallout 3 tries the same thing as 4 (open ended exploration with no hand holding) but didn't have the variety in locations to make it worthwhile. New Vegas didn't have to bother about any of the technical stuff since Fallout 3 took care of most of it so they just threw the whole exploration idea in the trash and focused primarily on story and quests, using F3 as a platform to save time (which was needed considering the ultra short deadlines) so most of the locations that aren't related to factions (read every cave, abandoned building and factory) is still boring and drab but the game actually has something to offer beyond that. In NV I didn't feel like I legitimately had a reason to walk anywhere unless someone told me to and a quest was attached to it, because the game is very heavily quest-driven, far more than 3 or 4.

you say that like being quest or story-driven is somehow a bad thing, for fallout no less.

[QUOTE=Hat-Wearing Man;50125222]you say that like being quest or story-driven is somehow a bad thing, for fallout no less.[/QUOTE] I didn't say that. I literally just said that NV does its focus better than Fallout 3.

[QUOTE=EliaMoroes;50124848]I'm starting to get a bit sick of this odd free pass Bethesda gets for every game they release, especially considering that many games get literally torn apart by critics and audience alike for extremely buggy release or shallow story directions, or even a combination of the two[/QUOTE] It's quite possible to enjoy a game despite its shortcomings. People enjoy Dark Souls 1/2 despite them being outshined by other games in the series.

[QUOTE=spekter;50125303]It's quite possible to enjoy a game despite its shortcomings. People enjoy Dark Souls 1/2 despite them being outshined by other games in the series.[/QUOTE] yes because people somehow think mods will fix everything in a bethesda game, that is ridiculous and it's why they seems to get a freepass..you'd expect with all that money, they could do a much, much better job than CDPROJEKTRED for the witcher 3 and its DLC, but of course no, they had to fuck everything :/ but then again talking about scale even with 110 millions nobody has a project star citizen-scaled :/

CD Projekt is fucking huge, stop acting like they're underdogs. Also The Witcher and Fallout (or TES) aren't the same type of RPG at all. Oh and CDPR also had some issues, notably the downgrade problems and the underwhelming SDK. I recall some people complaining that the open world in TW3 felt pretty unnecessary.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50125344]CD Projekt is fucking huge, stop acting like they're underdogs. Also The Witcher and Fallout (or TES) aren't the same type of RPG at all. Oh and CDPR also had some issues, notably the downgrade problems and the underwhelming SDK. I recall some people complaining that the open world in TW3 felt pretty unnecessary.[/QUOTE] ! [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply?" - Bradyns))[/highlight]

Last time I checked CDPR actually has a larger dev team than Bethesda.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50125389]Last time I checked CDPR actually has a larger dev team than Bethesda.[/QUOTE] ! EDIT : i wish there was a laser revolver or plasma revolver looking like a 44 revolver in game :/

How the fuck is the game "unfinished" Why do people use that as a fucking buzzword

[QUOTE=ApertureXS200;50125327]yes because people somehow think mods will fix everything in a bethesda game, that is ridiculous and it's why they seems to get a freepass..you'd expect with all that money, they could do a much, much better job than CDPROJEKTRED for the witcher 3 and its DLC, but of course no, they had to fuck everything :/ but then again talking about scale even with 110 millions nobody has a project star citizen-scaled :/[/QUOTE] It's pretty obvious Bethesda have no intentions on making a super in-depth styled Fallout/TES game. Just because you don't enjoy it doesn't mean it's automatically a bad game. Yes there's issues but if people find enjoyment in the game then suck it up, not everyone wants a super detailed RPG all the time. There's a difference between outlining the flaws and outright calling it a colossal fuck-up as if you expected them to suddenly switch gears and go oldschool on it. I mean, if you have evidence it's unfinished then present some otherwise it's just a wild accusation.

I want this mod for FO4 [url]http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/36163/?[/url]

[QUOTE=fulgrim;50124805]...and the fact there is no kinky raider armor in fallout 4.[/QUOTE] What about the harnesses?

got my first good batch of raiders today. it only takes 1 jet, 1 copper and 1 steel to repair the traps. taking all their weapons, clothes and ammo, then scrapping the weapons and clothes seems like a very good way to farm materials like steel and leather (+lots of screws and other stuff if you have scrapper) [video=youtube;72cXlfj-NJA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72cXlfj-NJA&feature=youtu.be[/video]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50124951]It means that making a game this open ended comes with pretty significant limitations, the kind that people tend to forget exist in the first place.[/QUOTE] Not exactly dude. With FO4's current engine and all the assets and voice actors at your command and a team, you could make a one HELL of a better game than Fallout4 currently. Turning the 4-way dialogue into a list of options that you can either click or press a button for alone would be taking it to the right direction, but it won't be FO4. And seriously, when modding tools are not even out, and you need like +40 mods and some config file fixing to make FO4 "good", then something is wrong. [editline]13th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Hatley;50125811]I want this mod for FO4 [url]http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/36163/?[/url][/QUOTE] 1st person view helmets like Project Nevada was also cool, but that drug mod would be an immediate install for me. And I don't even use drugs!* (*Depending on the save&character) Altho FO4 drugs do have visual effects.. Any visual effects are fine imo, as long as there's something.

The only part of fallout 4 that seems unfinished/rushed to me (except the bugs of course) is the amount of amazingly creative locations that are just filled with raiders. It seems like the map department finished the map, but scripters couldn't turn some of those locations into proper locations before the deadline so they were forced to fill them with generic enemies.

So I've run into a rather big problem all of a sudden. [img_thumb]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/508154101958788976/8DF80AABD6C3E80A7B4CD843ECBC486AFAEE5E6C/[/img_thumb] For some reason all of the UI elements in my game have shifted to the right. [img_thumb]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/508154101958794978/4332B99FD1EA61EBBF390D669EFF68F9689FC87D/[/img_thumb] Which is making it really goddamn difficult to play since the crosshair and UI is off center. Anyone have any ideas on how I could fix this? Or is also experiencing it?

[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;50126516]So I've run into a rather big problem all of a sudden. For some reason all of the UI elements in my game have shifted to the right. [t]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/508154101958794978/4332B99FD1EA61EBBF390D669EFF68F9689FC87D/[/t] Which is making it really goddamn difficult to play since the crosshair and UI is off center. Anyone have any ideas on how I could fix this? Or is also experiencing it?[/QUOTE] I suggest trying to change the resolution of the game to something lower than what you usually use, and then back again.