Fallout V23: "I got another thread that needs your help." - Games

I've noticed that some of the npc have started to refere to my male characters as if they were female. Whilst doing the Silver Shroud quest as Django, Kent says "Ah the silver shroud in all her glory" or something along the lines of that. And whilst base building as Gordon Freeman,[sp]Shaun[/sp]refered to me as[sp]Mom[/sp]. I shot him in the face afterwards. Anyone know why this might be happening?

[QUOTE=Chains!;49307085]Any examples? Cause he is one of the best voice actors in the world at the moment, and I can't remember him being bad in any roles.[/QUOTE] He was horrendous as re-dubbed James Sunderland in the silent hill HD collection. The awful VA direction was one reason behind that specific project being trite, but he also clearly didn't care much about his job and it shows a lot. He also was pretty average in Arkham Origins. Copied Mark Hamill's style but a bit more bland, and lacked enthusiasm.

[QUOTE=iThinkN7;49307090]I've noticed that some of the npc have started to refere to my male characters as if they were female. Whilst doing the Silver Shroud quest as Django, Kent says "Ah the silver shroud in all her glory" or something along the lines of that. And whilst base building as Gordon Freeman,[sp]Shaun[/sp]refered to me as[sp]Mom[/sp]. I shot him in the face afterwards. Anyone know why this might be happening?[/QUOTE] Probably just mistakes in the coding. If you play as a female, you'll notice getting called "sir" a lot.

[QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307089]Again. We're talking, criticising, and comparing FALLOUT games to each other here. You just go on and keep dragging every other game out there into the discussion while they're totally NOT relevant to it. Fallout is a breed of its own, there is a reason it stands out so much as a series compared to other RPG series out there.[/QUOTE] I said New Vegas isn't Obsidian's best game so of course I need to compare it to their other games since that's my point to begin with

I hope there's a mod at some point that overhauls settlement raids. First off, in enormous bold capital letters made of gold, not having the raiders spawning right in the middle of the settlement. I'd like there to be a mechanic whereby a settlement can detect incoming raids earlier depending on certain factors such as the raiding force passing other settlements on the way, presence of actual people in guard positions (rather than relying solely on turrets), spotlight placement, perhaps a system to intercept radio signals for fancier raiders etc. Weather could also affect detection, and certain extreme weathers might discourage some raiders and encourage more specialized ones. The idea being the earlier the raiders are detected, the further they spawn away from the settlement when you run there to defend it. Far enough away and you can just use heavy ordnance on the unsuspecting raiders. Conversely, if they're not detected at all, they could sneak in, steal shit, break stuff, murder and kidnap, with the success of their exfiltration dependent on the usual defence values. Feral ghoul rampages tied to radiation storms would be also rather fun imo, and perhaps other mutant types tied to weather phenomenon e.g. mirelurks venturing further from their watery homes if it rains hard, bloodbug swarms when the fog is extremely dense etc.

[QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307109]This isn't the first time. You do this pretty much every post of yours. Prime examples are when we were discussing a way back how Fallout 4 is an insulting RPG, especially compared to previous games, and then you go on and drag in shit like Witcher 3, Mass Effect, etc. It's totally not relevant dude, cut it out. Fallout doesn't need to adapt and change to the other "cool" and "hip" and "modern-new" triple A RPGs out there, because there's a reason people love it so much, it's s breed of its own, what's pretty much not found in other games, so it doesn't need to be another of those new triple A games with a Fallout paintjob.[/QUOTE] Bethesda and Obsidian can do whatever the fuck they want with the franchise. You're free to like or dislike what they end up doing on a subjective standard but that doesn't entitle you to act like a NMA-tier elitist. You're constantly crying about the game not catering to your interests and painting your subjective dislikes as what the """true fans""" of """real RPGs""" universally want, like it gives you any form of legitimacy. Anyone who disagrees with you, or is remotely defensive of Bethesda, or, god forbids, actually likes Fallout 4, is dismissed as a fanboy or a white knight or "pete hines in disguise" and showered in dumb or funny ratings because you can't come up with anything better. Stop being so childish.

[QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307109]This isn't the first time. You do this pretty much every post of yours. Prime examples are when we were discussing a way back how Fallout 4 is an insulting RPG, especially compared to previous games, and then you go on and drag in shit like Witcher 3, Mass Effect, etc. It's totally not relevant dude, cut it out. Fallout doesn't need to adapt and change to the other "cool" and "hip" and "modern-new" triple A RPGs out there, because there's a reason people love it so much, it's s breed of its own, what's pretty much not found in other games, so it doesn't need to be another of those new triple A games with a Fallout paintjob.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what's entirely wrong with comparing Fallout to other triple-A games, especially ones as well-made and accomplished as Witcher 3.

[QUOTE=Chains!;49307085]Any examples? Cause he is one of the best voice actors in the world at the moment, and I can't remember him being bad in any roles.[/QUOTE] To be honest, his role in Metal Gear Solid V The Phantom Pain is pretty bad, but that's almost entirely at the fault of whoever directed him.

[QUOTE=I am Error;49307149]To be honest, his role in Metal Gear Solid V The Phantom Pain is pretty bad, but that's almost entirely at the fault of whoever directed him.[/QUOTE] He was really good in MGS V imho. Ocelot is an arrogant, self-absorbed piece of shit who loves cow-boys and Baker's performance fit that quite well. The exaggerated, obviously forced Texan/Stereotypical cow-boy accent was a good example of that.

[QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307156]I hated how Bethesda just flipped the bird and turned it into something completely different, and that's my problem with the game. They tried to make it appeal more to the casual audience, sacrificing the elements that made the Fallout series so special in favour of more money because most of the casual audience blindly buy into everything that's open world, survival, shooting mechanics primarily, and exploration based with post apocalyptic theme, just look at the giant sub forum of Facepunch itself, Rust. They didn't add things like settlement builder to move the series forward, it's something that it's in all games of this genre nowadays like Minecraft and Rust, and while it's a cool thing to have, I rather have it not if it turns the other features of the game half baked.[/QUOTE] You're naive if you didn't think that was Bethesda's intention with Fallout 3 as well.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49306707]Man I really wanted to give the railroad a chance but [sp]once you become director of the institute it's pretty much entirely up to the protagonist to decide whether the synths should have more rights or not past the game's shown events, so the railroad is pretty dumb and pointless in the big picture.[/sp][/QUOTE] unless, of course, you're [sp]anti-institute rather than pro-synths. If you don't like the institute you probably won't want to be the leader of it, even if it would further your goals better[/sp]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49307158]He was really good in MGS V imho. Ocelot is an arrogant, self-absorbed piece of shit who loves cow-boys and Baker's performance fit that quite well. The exaggerated, obviously forced Texan/Stereotypical cow-boy accent was a good example of that.[/QUOTE] It's just jarring when compared to all the previous Ocelot's and doesn't fit in my opinion, but that said he definitely didn't act it badly. [QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307156]Bethesda did whatever the fuck I liked; reviving the series and giving it a modern upgrade. Obsidian did whatever the fuck I liked; giving us a classic Fallout RPG in the new gameplay mechanics. Bethesda did in Fallout 4 whatever the fuck I hate; throwing over the table, trying to "redefine" the series, and turning it into Borderlands/Mass Effect hybrid with a Fallout paintjob. See where it went wrong? I'm not a fucking NMA elitist you twat, they're a bunch of cirklejerking hipsters who praise the classic games to be godlike compared to the new shit. I absolutely love the shit out of this entire series and love to see how it evolved from Fallout 1 to New Vegas, while still remaining that what makes a Fallout game so special. I hated how Bethesda just flipped the bird and turned it into something completely different, and that's my problem with the game. They tried to make it appeal more to the casual audience, sacrificing the elements that made the Fallout series so special in favour of more money because most of the casual audience blindly buy into everything that's open world, survival, shooting mechanics primarily, and exploration based with post apocalyptic theme, just look at the giant sub forum of Facepunch itself, Rust. They didn't add things like settlement builder to move the series forward, it's something that it's in all games of this genre nowadays like Minecraft and Rust, and while it's a cool thing to have, I rather have it not if it turns the other features of the game half baked.[/QUOTE] What's with calling anyone who plays a shooter a casual player? Casual is shit like fucking Bejeweled and Fallout 4 definitely isn't trying to appeal to those. What they did with the gameplay mechanics makes sense for the direction Fallout has been heading, what I find problematic is that a lot of their ideas are very half-baked. Voiced dialogue? Fine, but the writing has a distinct lack of choices. Settlement building? Neat, but as it is it's very shallow in a multitude of ways. "Radiant" quests could work, but not as they did them, etc. etc. It feels as if you've taken Fallout 4 somehow as a personal insult and that's honestly not a good way of looking at things, but hey you do you

[QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307065]You're so full of shit when it comes to you criticising New Vegas (and pretty much all other Fallout games that are not Fallout 4, dragging in all kinds of unrelated games to for your arguments that are totally not relevant to the Fallout games). Yes, the shooting mechanics might not be that much of an improvement compared to Fallout 3', but you seem to forget that Obsidian had much, much less time to develop New Vegas than Bethesda had to develop Fallout 3, around a year or something. There wasn't that much room for Fallout 4 like improvements to the shooting mechanics, they never stated it would be the Fallout 4 compared to Fallout 3, they went for more Fallout on Fallout 3's engine, set again in the core region, but with more improvements, and being much more focused overall, and they obviously succeeded comparing it to Fallout 3. It did what every sequel should do to the previous game, even if it didn't make that huge leaps; improve upon the existing mechanics, and New Vegas excelled in all boxes. This, cut it out already will you. Posts like this confirms to me you do know anything on what your taking about. New Vegas isn't "on the bottom" of their list, it's the total opposite, it's one of their best games they've ever made and they still are to this day recognised because of their work on titles like New Vegas.[/QUOTE]The fact that they didn't have much time doesn't change the state of the combat though. New Vegas had very good roleplaying mechanics in it, and was excellent in that regard. On the other hand, the shooting in vanilla NV is dull and combat usually entails either enemies running at you with weapon drawn or standing completely still with weapons drawn. Weapon behavior was awful and you pretty much needed mods for full auto weapons to be fun to use (this is my personal opinionated opinion, not writing a wiki here) which left single fire guns as the most rewarding to use.

[QUOTE=Lizzrd;49307201]Weapon behavior was awful and you pretty much needed mods for full auto weapons to be fun to use (this is my personal opinionated opinion, not writing a wiki here) which left single fire guns as the most rewarding to use.[/QUOTE] There was also a problem with automatic weapons being incredibly ammo-inefficient because you would inevitably miss shots. There was certainly a reason why 5mm was only used for automatics.

[QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307156]Bethesda did whatever the fuck I liked; reviving the series and giving it a modern upgrade. Obsidian did whatever the fuck I liked; giving us a classic Fallout RPG in the new gameplay mechanics. Bethesda did in Fallout 4 whatever the fuck I hate; throwing over the table, trying to "redefine" the series, and turning it into Borderlands/Mass Effect hybrid with a Fallout paintjob. See where it went wrong? I'm not a fucking NMA elitist you twat, they're a bunch of cirklejerking hipsters who praise the classic games to be godlike compared to the new shit. I absolutely love the shit out of this entire series and love to see how it evolved from Fallout 1 to New Vegas, while still remaining that what makes a Fallout game so special. I hated how Bethesda just flipped the bird and turned it into something completely different, and that's my problem with the game. They tried to make it appeal more to the casual audience, sacrificing the elements that made the Fallout series so special in favour of more money because most of the casual audience blindly buy into everything that's open world, survival, shooting mechanics primarily, and exploration based with post apocalyptic theme, just look at the giant sub forum of Facepunch itself, Rust. They didn't add things like settlement builder to move the series forward, it's something that it's in all games of this genre nowadays like Minecraft and Rust, and while it's a cool thing to have, I rather have it not if it turns the other features of the game half baked.[/QUOTE] You claim you're not an elitist and then talk about the "casual audience" like they're the plague.

This mod has consumed me. [vid]http://webm.host/c978e/vid.webm[/vid]

[QUOTE=I am Error;49307199]It's just jarring when compared to all the previous Ocelot's and doesn't fit in my opinion, but that said he definitely didn't act it badly.[/QUOTE] Considering in his next canon appearance Ocelot has gone fully insane and starts wearing cow boy boots (along with kicking the revolver thing into maximum overdrive), I think Baker draws a pretty good transition between the "cocky and arrogant" ocelot of MGS 3 and the "arrogant and BATSHIT INSANE" ocelot of MGS 1 and onward. [editline]13th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307220]Ofcourse it was Bethesda's intention with Fallout 3, hell it was the game that introduced me to the series. But in my eyes, despite it was the black sheep of the series, even Fallout 3 was more of a "Fallout RPG" than Fallout 4 ever will be. And atleast Fallout 3 moved the series forward, they saved it from Interplay, they revived it, it caused amazing stuff like New Vegas. I don't see how Fallout 4 moved the series forward, combined with Bethesda having the exact same intentions for it like it had for Fallout 3.[/QUOTE] They brought the series forward by giving it not trash combat and new interesting features that people are obviously really getting into like better crafting/settlement building/armor customization. Shifting the writing from a player-character centric experience to a fully player-centric experience was a gamble and it seems to mostly be divisive rather than universally poorly received. As a lot of people pointed out in that thread, having a voiced protagonist brings a lot of immersion to the game even if it comes at the price of slightly more difficult roleplaying (something not a lot of players actually do in these games).

The RTS mod was very popular for NV so if anything Bethesda already knew many people playing Fallout wanted some kind of building settlement mechanics and they did it. Personally i don't use it but i see no issue with it except for some inconsistency with the story being told (the world being so harsh around you and people still living in shambles for decades when you can just leave your vault and build a fuckhuge city out of nowhere) Complaining about it is silly. It's just another added distraction for an open world game and i'd rather build stuff in the postgame than keep doing radiant shit for Preston [QUOTE=Ganerumo;49307224]Shifting the writing from a player-character centric experience to a fully player-centric experience was a gamble and it seems to mostly be divisive rather than universally poorly received. As a lot of people pointed out in that thread, having a voiced protagonist brings a lot of immersion to the game even if it comes at the price of slightly more difficult roleplaying (something not a lot of players actually do in these games).[/QUOTE] Divisive? You're still the only one who thinks the voices and new dialogue system were a step forward and not back Also voiced protagonist doesn't bring immersion, it ruins it. Every character i make will have the same white guy voice and white guy tone to everything i do regardless of my character. Big, fat black guy or skinny asian dude? Same white guy voice. Voice acting works for ME and Witcher because Geralt and Sheppard are already stablished characters and you just change their appearance around. That's not the case with Fallout and using Witcher to prove the point that "voice acting works" just shows how clueless the people is about the issue being questioned.

[QUOTE=Gatekeeper828;49307021]I think having a voiced protagonist is fine, I just think we need more than two voices and more than four options in dialogue.[/QUOTE] 4 options is fine they just need to stop being so damn lazy with the writing, they could easily give you 4 wildly different options but instead its usually 4 of the same thing with the same outcome Also did anybody actually playtest this game lmao, this is the 3rd time I've done this mission with x6 and every single time across all 3 characters a vertibird has dropped off 2 power armor soldiers so these dipshits get in a never ending fight because he can't kill them with his super soaker and he can't die because essential [t]http://i.imgur.com/NrwVYVK.jpg[/t] Its like a scripted vertibird landing in the dumbest place

Honestly the radiant system isn't bad in itself, the balance between radiant content and preset content is just fucked up and far too biased towards radiant content. I don't see how the construction system has anything to factor in that though, it's just a really cool feature that they put in the game and that a lot of people are loving so far.

[QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307262]I rather have interesting and carefully crafted quests to occupy myself (like all previous games largely were full of) than both of those, but that's probably just me I guess.[/QUOTE] I would too, but the lack of meaningful quests isn't the settlement mechanics fault. The people who made the building stuff and the people who wrote the quests worked in different departments and if you took it out you would still have a game with poorly written quests in general and no world building stuff to at least occupy you. You have to take the small victories you can get. [QUOTE=Ganerumo;49307266]Honestly the radiant system isn't bad in itself[/QUOTE] Yes it is. Adding bad, shallow and repetitive infinite content just to brag that you have infinite content is a lazy way to avoid having to work in nice, well crafted stuff If i wanted to repeat missions like "go kill x raiders" and "go defend y settlement" over and over i would be playing a mmorpg

[QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307220]Ofcourse it was Bethesda's intention with Fallout 3, hell it was the game that introduced me to the series. But in my eyes, despite it was the black sheep of the series, even Fallout 3 was more of a "Fallout RPG" than Fallout 4 ever will be. And atleast Fallout 3 moved the series forward, they saved it from Interplay, they revived it, it caused amazing stuff like New Vegas. I don't see how Fallout 4 moved the series forward, combined with Bethesda having the exact same intentions for it like it had for Fallout 3, other than making Bethesda more money. You can all call me a fanboy or hater, or whatever floats your boat, but I just see myself as a long time fan who has been stabbed in the back for loving this series and it's wonderful fiction and style of gameplay so much.[/QUOTE] I'm seeing you as someone who had astronomically huge expectations and then was somehow surprised when they were inevitably not going to be met. I don't understand how you can be alright with Fallout 3 completely casualising the series, but then get sad about Fallout 4 for doing the exact same thing. I don't even see how Fallout 4 is "less of an RPG" than 3, or consider how Fallout 4 is somehow less Fallout-y than 3 even when 3 either destroyed or rewrote entire chunks of canon. In fact, Bethesda's version of Fallout [I]is[/I] Fallout now, a lot of things that are iconic to the series are because of Bethesda. T-45d, the Fat Man, even the Vault Boy, while he was in the previous Fallouts, Bethesda gave him a much bigger spotlight in their games. And if you ask me, Fallout 4's perk system is [I]miles[/I] better than Fallout 3's skill system. It works much, much better with the kind of game Bethesda wanted to make. The only sacrifice it had to make is that skill-based speech checks are gone, but Bethesda would not have done anything with that anyway.

[QUOTE=Nemisis116;49307247]4 options is fine they just need to stop being so damn lazy with the writing, they could easily give you 4 wildly different options but instead its usually 4 of the same thing with the same outcome Also did anybody actually playtest this game lmao, this is the 3rd time I've done this mission with x6 and every single time across all 3 characters a vertibird has dropped off 2 power armor soldiers so these dipshits get in a never ending fight because he can't kill them with his super soaker and he can't die because essential [t]http://i.imgur.com/NrwVYVK.jpg[/t] Its like a scripted vertibird landing in the dumbest place[/QUOTE] When I got there and saw the vertibird coming, I just ran to the parking on the other side of the bridge, fast travelled to sanctuary and fast travelled back, and the vertibird was then going back to the Prydwen.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49307266]Honestly the radiant system isn't bad in itself, the balance between radiant content and preset content is just fucked up and far too biased towards radiant content. I don't see how the construction system has anything to factor in that though, it's just a really cool feature that they put in the game and that a lot of people are loving so far.[/QUOTE] They way they did the radiant quests is also impossibly lazy. They could've made them discoverable, maybe have a couple of presets on how it would be "generated", but nah it's just Preston giving you a goddamn endless list of settlements that he heard need help. There's honestly very little nice to be said about them in Fallout 4. As I said earlier, I think Fallout 4 suffers heavily from a lot of half-baking. Settlement building, dialogue, radiant quests, crafting and modding, you name it and it just seems like it wasn't fully thought out, honestly. I get that they didn't have an endless amount of time, but a number of them could've easily been figured out in pre-production and would've taken the same, if not less, time. Also jesus christ fire your writers, Bethesda.

[QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307285]I get a lot of people actually love Fallout 4, but I don't get why they applied all these new features and changes on the Fallout IP. They honestly just should have gone with a different IP or something.[/QUOTE] It's their big franchise now - why bother trying to start a new one when you can add all the new stuff to a Fallout game and generate tons of hype just by the name alone? Look at the repercussions for Fallout 4 announcement this year. It was massive. No one would care that much if Bethesda announced their new game Synthcraft in the E3 That's how the business works.

[QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307285]I get a lot of people actually love Fallout 4, but I don't get why they applied all these new features and changes on the Fallout IP. They honestly just should have gone with a different IP or something, and not one that is know for is complex roleplaying for like 18 years now.[/QUOTE] The new features are directly from some of the most downloaded and acclaimed mods for fallout 3 and New Vegas. - Settlements was done in FO3 and NV with Real Time Settler. - Weapon Mods was done in FO3 with Weapon Mod Kits before being added in vanilla New Vegas. - Armor Layering was done in FO3 from Tailor Maid (was there ever a NV version ? never bothered looking) And while those are basically just very common FPS features nowadays, grenade hotkeys and sprinting were added in mods both in Fallout 3 and NV, notably as part of Project Nevada which is a huge and really popular mod. How the fuck was adding these features, which were prominently appreciated by the modding community, unfitting for the Fallout IP ???

Does Institute have radiant quests.

It's a really weird feeling in this thread when you have two sides arguing about what they like and hate about the game and with every post thinking "I see where you're coming from, and I agree somewhat but you're a bit silly." Fallout 4 was never going to be New Vegas 2, it was never going to have the story or the quests that made you care about the world because Bethesda's games have never been that, not even Morrowind. At the same time many of the design choices, while not inherently bad, are things people can have legitimate grievances with. Also, Rudy, for someone who goes on and on about how much you love the old games you don't seem to know much about them in relation to their contemporaries. Fallout was always one of the most simplistic RPGs around, and it always had very limited dialogue options, claiming otherwise is a denial of reality. It doesn't make the changes in Fallout 4 better or worse, but you need to stop pretending the Fallout games were ever as deep as Baldur's Gate, Planescape, or Neverwinter Nights.

[QUOTE=brenz;49307311]Does Institute have radiant quests.[/QUOTE] Three or four of them, yeah

[QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49307303]Yes, I'm gonna be very honest with you, I had astronomically huge expectations, but what do you want with a previous game like New Vegas? Is it really weird as a massive fan of the series to expect from a Triple A developer, even though it's a different one, a sequel that will top the previous game?[/QUOTE] It's not weird, it is monumentally stupid though. Bethesda's games have never, ever been that kind of game. There's literally nothing to support the expectation that Fallout 4 would be anything more than Fallout 3 2.0.