I don't get why people want dogmeat to die.
As said, it would be an escort mission all the time. I didn't use him once on F3 because he could die.
He could die, right?...
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740439]Bunch of stuff.[/QUOTE]
Okay look I'm deeply sorry to say but it so happens that the majority of the playerbase both on PC and Consoles don't want a super punishing hardcore experience that kicks their ass and requires adapting to the mechanics and difficulty before they can enjoy it. They want something that is fun.
Bethesda games have the massive perk of being moddable in nearly every aspect. This means that if some mechanics don't fit your playstyle or how you want the game to be, you can just wait for a month or two until the SDK comes out and then have literally decades worth of modding content be uploaded to truly tailor the experience.
Bethesda, like any major game developer, makes games to make profit. Because of the modding capability of their games, they can release them in a way that caters to the largest possible audience from the start and then fill the gap to the more niche audience like gamers looking for a hardcore experience, a roleplay experience, a more mature or more amusing experience, so on and so forth.
This is an exaggeration since one niche is not nearly as small as the other, but you complaining that a heavily moddable game doesn't cater to your own perception of fun makes about as much sense as a loverslab enthusiast complaining that the same heavily moddable game doesn't come with explicit rape and dynamic pregnancy in the vanilla experience.
[editline]a[/editline]
And please stop being so damn full of yourself that you claim the game is actually inferior in quality specifically because it's not reaching your standards or not catering to your sense of fun in a game.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48740529]katy perry should just start making experimental indie albums instead of that gay mainstream shit she does
also treyarch and infinity ward should just start making walking sims[/QUOTE]
I guaran-fucking-tee you if Katy Perry made an experimental indie album right now, it would sell. But I guess the idea of doing something that's not pop music or a game that offers challenge is [I]out of this fucking wOOorld DuUude[/I]
a band can succeed off fucking folk music, oh sure, they're not going to be super duper rich, but who gives a shit? I guess money is all that matters.
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48740552]Okay look I'm deeply sorry to say but it so happens that the majority of the playerbase both on PC and Consoles don't want a super punishing hardcore experience that kicks their ass and requires adapting to the mechanics and difficulty before they can enjoy it. They want something that is fun.
Bethesda games have the massive perk of being moddable in nearly every aspect. This means that if some mechanics don't fit your playstyle or how you want the game to be, you can just wait for a month or two until the SDK comes out and then have literally decades worth of modding content be uploaded to truly tailor the experience.
Bethesda, like any major game developer, makes games to make profit. Because of the modding capability of their games, they can release them in a way that caters to the largest possible audience from the start and then fill the gap to the more niche audience like gamers looking for a hardcore experience, a roleplay experience, a more mature or more amusing experience, so on and so forth.
This is an exaggeration since one niche is not nearly as small as the other, but you complaining that a heavily moddable game doesn't cater to your own perception of fun makes about as much sense as a loverslab enthusiast complaining that the same heavily moddable game doesn't come with explicit rape and dynamic pregnancy in the vanilla experience.[/QUOTE]
When did I say it needed to be some buttfuck hard challenging experience? Even if it was, why are we acting like that can't sell?
You keep saying the balance is all fucked and you start out as too powerful which literally translated into the game being too easy by your standards, or else you wouldn't be complaining about starting out strong.
And a very difficult game can sell, when it's been targeted from the start as a very hard game - see dark souls, or the witcher 3 (a game which I personally disliked, for various reasons which are fully subjective), and even then you have to accept the fact the games will sold well for the niche they fulfill but won't compete with other titles as a whole. Bethesda's strategy as I've detailed it is relevant, functional and efficient, they have no reason to change it and changing it after so many successful games following this exact concept would be more detrimental to them than anything.
I don't think people understand how daunting it is to balance a game like fallout.
the entire gimmick behind dark souls is difficulty. The entire gimmick behind Bethesda games is exploration. They're two entirely different games. Comparing the two is pretty much impossible.
And then there's a game like witcher 3, even though it's considered somehow the best game ever made, and is considered pretty hard, I find witcher 3 a somewhat easy game on the hardest difficulty some of the time, and other times unfair. There's a lot mods can improve.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48740593]You keep saying the balance is all fucked and you start out as too powerful which literally translated into the game being too easy by your standards, or else you wouldn't be complaining about starting out strong.[/QUOTE]
the funny thing is, is that "too easy" and "Too hard" is literally based around every players skillset and it's IMPOSSIBLE to make a game be "Too hard" or "Too easy" universally. You also can grind in fallout and hit max level, making it even easier no matter what, which is the entire point of an rpg game.
There is objectively hard games, and objectively easy games, but it's all based on the users skill level. You can't make a game hard for everyone unless you make it unfair.
except for the fact that bethesda does this with a difficulty slider.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48740585]i guarantee if katy perry made an experimental album it would sell well and she would never put out as successful albums as any of her past ones
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
theres a reason why snoop dog stopped being snoop lion[/QUOTE]
And that's the problem. Success is quantified by dollars instead of quality. Maybe we should judge the success of an album by things like "it's a creative masterpiece" rather than "how big can my mansion be"
[editline]e[/editline]
you're acting like it's a purely binary switch, like you can only make something bland to make a profit, and making something that's artistic and high quality and selling well aren't possible at the same time
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740439]Well, let's all sit around the campfire and listen to pop music and play some CoD, if it's all about mass appeal and profit. I mean, hey, those are the proven sellers, why make or do anything else? Why make a post apocalypse game? Post apocalypse is a niche audience![/QUOTE]
Oh a false dichotomy! Wonderful. Things need to appeal to wide audiences when they cost lots of money to make. The option to have a harder game is there for fucks sakes.
[QUOTE]Do you really think people are going to put down Fallout 4 and walk away because they died, or ran out of ammo? Do you really think people are going to look at a vast world with deep lore and awesome art and character design and great music and such interesting concepts and say "Nah" because it offers a challenge?[/QUOTE]
I really think some people don't want their fun time to be dictated in the same way you want it to be.
Again. You are jumping to conclusions and demanding you be put first.
[QUOTE]To go back to Dark Souls, Dark Souls is a 'niche' game. There are currently 4 games and a 5th on the way, it gets showcased at E3 and people lose their fucking minds, and you can bet it makes it's money back. Payday is a massively successful series that just happens to be really difficult and people love it, the second one made its money back from pre-orders alone and it's one of the most successful games on Steam.[/QUOTE]
While that is true, those are niche titles.
Let me deal with the false dichotomy you laid out earlier now because it's more relveant here.
A game like CoD succeeds because of it's reputation and it's appeal. It's copy cats do not succeed. Why? Because the market can't bear a bunch of CoD clones.
Fo4 is already entering a crowded market of survival titles and has a good deal of pedigree to it's name and thanks to gaming being such a large market these days, they'd like to get new gamers in too. Oh no. To do this, sometimes somethings get paired down or simplified. sometimes this sucks.
But guess what? In this case, in this case, it doesn't fucking matter. You'll be able to fix it. Like holy shit.
[QUOTE]Half Life 2 is a critically acclaimed masterpiece that sold massively well and I can tell you I died a decent amount playing it, and ran out of ammo. BioShock Infinite was really hard for me, I guess partially because I just sucked shit at it since I'm not good at console shooters, I'm sure it was really hard for other people and one thing that was popular about it was the 1999 mode. Sold like hotcakes. Portal is a game that went for a genre that's completely niche and has been played by millions.
But a massive RPG by fucking Bethesda can't sell because they went for quality over projected mass appeal?[/QUOTE]
Quality is such a subjective term that you keep using like YOU are the arbitrary definer of what is "QUALITY".
You are not.
[QUOTE]I can agree budgets are overinflated and there's a drive to make money back which means they need to appeal. Guess what? That's why games are getting worse, and worse, and worse. A good budget is supposed to mean your game can be bigger and better, not fucking bland, easy, and made to appeal to the widest demographic possible. Why do we criticize Konami again? Konami only did what was good for business and profits.[/QUOTE]
Games are getting worse and worse and worse? That's fucking news to me.
I mean, it's not like I can't go play Bloodborne, Destiny Taken King, Rocket League, Drive Club and a host of other games on a new gen console right now, some of those I got for free even. Wow, games are so much worse at a mainstream level. Shit.
And it's not like I don't have a steam library filled with new titles from all genres that are generally amazing. Games are getting worse?
Only if you can't take off the nostalgia goggles.
[QUOTE]I care about it not just because it's more enjoyable for me, but because I think it's better for the game, and better for the series, and better for people in general. I care deeply for Fallout. It's easily my favorite series of all time. I want what's best for Fallout, and more profit at the cost of quality is not it. Sitting around stagnating in mass appeal does nothing for anyone.[/QUOTE]
So you would rather get a game that appeals to you personally and see that another fallout game is never made because it didn't sell well enough to justify it?
God damn shortsighted.
What exactly about what they're doing is "destroying the series" or making it so unappealing to you that it's ruined?
In what ways is it irreparably damaged for you?
This is like back before Fo3 even came out where people could not shut up about how Fo3 was just going to be an abomination of the Fallout series.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740603]And that's the problem. Success is quantified by dollars instead of quality. Maybe we should judge the success of an album by things like "it's a creative masterpiece" rather than "how big can my mansion be"
[editline]e[/editline]
you're acting like it's a purely binary switch, like you can only make something bland to make a profit, and making something that's artistic and high quality and selling well aren't possible at the same time[/QUOTE]
"poor quality" doesn't mean its bad you know. Bethesda games are FUN, that's all that matters to people. They don't mind some of the uncannyness and they're extremely playable games. They're objectively good, with objective bad in them, and everything subjective about them is just a side effect of being a game.
You can still have fun playing a 'bad' game. This is why CoD is successful as hell, because they're FUN to play. Have you ever played CoD online? It's really energetic, it's exciting. People don't play CoD games because the programmer spent extra time making the menu's better, they play it because it's a roller coaster.
Quality of a game isn't measured by how innovative and difficult it is. If you're measuring a games quality with things like it being "Hard" and "INNOVATIVE" you're doing it because you fell into the corporate buzzword trap.
and there are a huge number of games that have excellent quality but were failures. There are tons of indie titles out there that are QUALITY games, but do not succeed at all. There are plenty of high quality, artistic games that have made plenty of profit too.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740603]And that's the problem. Success is quantified by dollars instead of quality. Maybe we should judge the success of an album by things like "it's a creative masterpiece" rather than "how big can my mansion be"
[editline]e[/editline]
you're acting like it's a purely binary switch, like you can only make something bland to make a profit, and making something that's artistic and high quality and selling well aren't possible at the same time[/QUOTE]
No it's hardly a binary switch and that's evidenced by the highly succesful titles that out now that have wide appeal and have deep features.
but there's certainly elements of things that don't really matter.
And guess what? If a game doesn't sell well enough to merit another, you aren't getting another.
Would you be happy if that happened but you got a game that was closer to your demands?
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740603]And that's the problem. Success is quantified by dollars instead of quality. Maybe we should judge the success of an album by things like "it's a creative masterpiece" rather than "how big can my mansion be"[/QUOTE]
Okay let's list a bunch of games that sold poorly and are still considered a success from a critical standpoint :
- Beyond Good & Evil (complete financial disaster, still critically acclaimed to this day)
- Grim Fandango (has a cult following, got crushed upon release by half life, MGS and zelda)
- Psychonauts
- Brütal Legend (personally didn't like it, but lots of people loved it)
- Shenmue
- Sleeping Dogs
- Earthbound (in the US it was a flop commercially speaking)
- Most title by Platinum Games (notably Okami and more famously Bayonetta, which was such a commercial flop it required Nintendo to step in to finance a sequel)
- Planescape: Torment (recognized as [I]one of the greatest RPGs of all time[/I], mind you)
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48740706]Okay let's list a bunch of games that sold poorly and are still considered a success from a critical standpoint :
- Beyond Good & Evil (complete financial disaster, still critically acclaimed to this day)
- Grim Fandango (has a cult following, got crushed upon release by half life, MGS and zelda)
- Psychonauts
- Brütal Legend (personally didn't like it, but lots of people loved it)
- Shenmue
- Sleeping Dogs
- Earthbound (in the US it was a flop commercially speaking)
- Most title by Platinum Games (notably Okami and more famously Bayonetta, which was such a commercial flop it required Nintendo to step in to finance a sequel)
- Planescape: Torment (recognized as [I]one of the greatest RPGs of all time[/I], mind you)[/QUOTE]
Remember Alien:I as well. Sega considered it a sales failure (tbh it doesn't seem like it was), and was an excellent game
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48740652]Oh a false dichotomy! Wonderful. Things need to appeal to wide audiences when they cost lots of money to make. The option to have a harder game is there for fucks sakes.
I really think some people don't want their fun time to be dictated in the same way you want it to be.
Again. You are jumping to conclusions and demanding you be put first.
While that is true, those are niche titles.
Let me deal with the false dichotomy you laid out earlier now because it's more relveant here.
A game like CoD succeeds because of it's reputation and it's appeal. It's copy cats do not succeed. Why? Because the market can't bear a bunch of CoD clones.
Fo4 is already entering a crowded market of survival titles and has a good deal of pedigree to it's name and thanks to gaming being such a large market these days, they'd like to get new gamers in too. Oh no. To do this, sometimes somethings get paired down or simplified. sometimes this sucks.
But guess what? In this case, in this case, it doesn't fucking matter. You'll be able to fix it. Like holy shit.
Quality is such a subjective term that you keep using like YOU are the arbitrary definer of what is "QUALITY".
You are not.
Games are getting worse and worse and worse? That's fucking news to me.
I mean, it's not like I can't go play Bloodborne, Destiny Taken King, Rocket League, Drive Club and a host of other games on a new gen console right now, some of those I got for free even. Wow, games are so much worse at a mainstream level. Shit.
And it's not like I don't have a steam library filled with new titles from all genres that are generally amazing. Games are getting worse?
Only if you can't take off the nostalgia goggles.
So you would rather get a game that appeals to you personally and see that another fallout game is never made because it didn't sell well enough to justify it?
God damn shortsighted.
What exactly about what they're doing is "destroying the series" or making it so unappealing to you that it's ruined?
In what ways is it irreparably damaged for you?
This is like back before Fo3 even came out where people could not shut up about how Fo3 was just going to be an abomination of the Fallout series.[/QUOTE]
Did I say the Fallout series was an irreparably damaged, destroyed, piece of shit franchise?
Quality is subjective, but things are usually crafted according to creative rules. There are rules to writing good poetry. There are rules to filmmaking. There are rules to photography, painting, music, anything. And there are rules to game design. Making a game with no challenge repeatedly proves to be unsatisfying. Some things supplant any rule you can name and pull it off, but they generally apply. An overly easy game = worse. An excessively hard game = worse. (unless you're in to that sort of thing I suppose)
I'd like for you to explain why the games industry up to the modern day was ever able to succeed. According to demographics, hard games are niche and don't appeal. Name me some legendary games we'll remember forever. Let's see, Mario, Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Tetris, Pac-Man, Castlevania, Sonic. Are any of those games easy? No. But they sold. People made a living. Companies made a living. But according to our modern day demographic centric thought process, surely these should have been failures? Games [I]had[/I] no pedigree. They had jack shit. And now, Mario's a pop culture icon. Was the gaming scene niche back then? Of course it was. But it made it's profit back anyway, so who cares?
Not to be melodramatic, but is this really all it's about? Quantity over quality? The endless pursuit of money so you can get a bigger budget so you can make a watered down game with super pretty graphics so you can get more money so you can do it again and again and again until the industry shits out, when you could be doing just fine pursuing making a game with full artistic integrity instead, and it would still make money back, even if it's not CoD numbers?
Why is that not acceptable? Why do we have to keep getting bigger and bigger? Why do we have to put ourselves in a position where a flop means the death of a company? Why [I]do[/I] we need more money?
And why are we acting like this is just me? I'm not the only person who thinks this, far from it. I reckon thousands, millions of people feel the same as I do. I know they do. Does supposedly being a minority make us wrong? Why is it self centered of me to want a game to be harder for the sake of the game, but it's not self centered to care more about your profit than the game?
tbh games can't be compared to art because there are no rules to making art, and there are no rules to making a video game. the difference however is that video games have objectivity and film and art does not. You can make an objectively good or bad game, or an objectively bad level, but there is still plenty of subjectivity to go around in games.
Profit means you get another game.
Like holy shit.
How hard is that to get? A game is a critical success but a commercial failure? It's usually gone and dead.
If you want the game to be harder, in this case, you will be able to make it harder.
That's why I don't see it as a very important complaint in this case.
Also, most of those games you mentioned are not all that hard at their core.
How is this game not hard enough because your companion can't die? How does that really hurt the game?
Bethesda games sell for being fun and only mildly challenging titles. They're not going to differ from that. That's fine. Why do you really expect that to change?
[QUOTE=J!NX;48740830]tbh games can't be compared to art because there are no rules to making art, and there are no rules to making a video game. the difference however is that video games have objectivity and film and art does not. You can make an objectively good or bad game, or an objectively bad level, but there is still plenty of subjectivity to go around in games.[/QUOTE]
Games are art. And yeah, there are guidelines to making art. Sure, you can throw shit at a painting and call it art, and I would encourage you to do so to shake things up, but there are methods to masterpieces.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48740861]Profit means you get another game.
Like holy shit.
How hard is that to get? A game is a critical success but a commercial failure? It's usually gone and dead.
If you want the game to be harder, in this case, you will be able to make it harder.
That's why I don't see it as a very important complaint in this case.
Also, most of those games you mentioned are not all that hard at their core.
How is this game not hard enough because your companion can't die? How does that really hurt the game?
Bethesda games sell for being fun and only mildly challenging titles. They're not going to differ from that. That's fine. Why do you really expect that to change?[/QUOTE]
You can't profit without appealing to the widest demographic?
Yes, I can make it harder. I don't factor in mods when critiquing a title. As far as I'm concerned, mods don't exist beyond being possible when talking about Fallout 4, or anything, really. And bullshit they're not hard, those games kick ass.
And again, games of the time profited. So what does it matter? Nintendo profited and made another game, and didn't have to compromise shit. Do you think Nintendo would have died if Link to the Past didn't sell? Do you think Nintendo would die if the next LoZ sold nothing? Well no, but you can bet they'd reel a lot more these days.
Why is a critical success and a commercial success not possible at the same time?
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740913]Games are art. And yeah, there are guidelines to making art. Sure, you can throw shit at a painting and call it art, and I would encourage you to do so to shake things up, but there are methods to masterpieces.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2549351/Its-like-cleanse-body-mind-Vomit-Painter-throws-canvas-create-Jackson-Pollock-style-splatter-paintings-Lady-Gaga-loves.html[/url]
Art has no boundaries or limitations though, and games like "Gone home" has shown us that you don't need to follow the 'rules' to make a game. Success can either be made by something bad or good, and even good things can have bad success by blending it, and good things can also succeed by being completely different and taking on a new form.
No one has ever made a "Rule book", there are no "Guidelines". I don't know where you're getting that there are but there aren't. The only guideline there is, is what is commonly seen as the norm. When you don't follow the norm it's not that you're breaking the guideline, it's that you're simply walking in completely unseen territory.
When you can puke on a painting and make money from it, it's impossible to say there is a guideline to art.
[QUOTE=J!NX;48740971][url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2549351/Its-like-cleanse-body-mind-Vomit-Painter-throws-canvas-create-Jackson-Pollock-style-splatter-paintings-Lady-Gaga-loves.html[/url]
Art has no boundaries or limitations though, and games like "Gone home" has shown us that you don't need to follow the 'rules' to make a game.[/QUOTE]
I think guidelines is a better term than rules, and you can debate those guidelines at that. You can debate me that a challenging game is inherently better, I just think I would 'win' that debate. Rules are hard set, and art isn't hard set, I'll totally agree. In an era where people will tell you that now the rule is that nonono, games that are hard won't sell, Dark Souls comes around and shows everyone up. Gone Home shakes up the gaming scene and challenges people and tons of people get pissy about it but the idea of what a game is and what it needs to be is challenged and I think that's inherently a good thing regardless of whether or not. It comes from creativity and art and all that good shit. It's not walking in and saying this is how it should be because from a business perspective bla bla bla
And when you can puke on a painting and make money off it, you can make a hard game and make money off it.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48741039]an epic painting depicting something in history occurring will sell much much more than puke on canvas in nearly every instance[/QUOTE]
Why does that matter so long as the puke on canvas still profits?
Epic depiction of history=$$$
Puke on a canvas=$
Game that is not hard as balls=$$$
Game that is hard as balls=$
Companies will go for that which gets them more money.
[QUOTE=kilerabv;48741069]Epic depiction of history=$$$
Puke on a canvas=$
Game that is not hard as balls=$$$
Game that is hard as balls=$
Companies will go for that which gets them more money.[/QUOTE]
As long as there's a $ there at all I don't care how many of them there are. But I'm way less money centric than others. Like I just view mansions as a waste of time and I think companies pursuing money till the end of time (and to be fair there I kinda can't talk shit because they're companies, that's what companies do even if they hound it excessively), is a big fat waste if they don't do anything good with the money.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48741072]because a majority of the time puke on canvas doesn't sell well at all[/QUOTE]
No, not particularly. But hypothetically, if it did sell consistently well, what's it matter that one makes more?
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740439]
To go back to Dark Souls, Dark Souls is a 'niche' game. There are currently 4 games and a 5th on the way, it gets showcased at E3 and people lose their fucking minds, and you can bet it makes it's money back.[/QUOTE]
You don't have to babysit brain dead AI in Dark Souls. Also when you do have allied AI in Dark Souls you can summon them infinitely if they die. You don't seem to understand the point of the difficulty in Darks Souls and why not every game needs to emulate it.
Dark Souls is hard because the developers want every thing you do to feel like an accomplishment. They want you to feel like you have overcome a challenge and they do that by making you actually have to overcome a challenge.
Fallout is not hard because that's not the point. Fallout is about the world, about being pulled into interesting situations with interesting people, going to interesting places. You can make it harder if you want by increasing the difficulty or by modding the game.
You have conflated difficulty with quality which is an entirely false assumption. Battletoads is hard as hell and it is a piece of shit people only play ironically, Journey is incredibly easy and is one of the best 'indie' games available on the Playstation. You're bitching and moaning that the game is bad because it isn't hard and it doesn't pander to you while it panders to a much wider audience instead, assuming you're right without even trying to understand what the game is trying to do. Fallout is not supposed to be a hard as fuck game, it has never been a hard as fuck game, even the original Fallout was an easy game compared to its peers at the time with its simplified attributes and stats. Fallout was originally meant to be a more accessible RPG stepping back from the DnD system that had overtaken most games at the time with a system based on the GURPS system. Many people forget this because the unfairly hard RPGs of the time didn't sell as well because [i]bullshit artificial difficulty has always been unpopular[/i].
I didn't want to spend my time building a perfect character in old RPGs, and I don't want to spend my time babysitting braindead companions in modern RPGs. If I had any control over where my companions stood, how they acted, what distance they followed me at, what tactics they used, then I would be happy with them being able to die. As it stands they run forward like morons and get themselves killed in stupid ways the vast, VAST majority of the time. I recently had to load a hardcore save in New Vegas because Cass died. I didn't get her killed, it wasn't a difficult fight (just 4 legionaries), and she didn't even help in the fight. What happened was she decided that the enemies were too close for her to use her shotgun, so she pulled out a melee weapon and ran straight into their bullets.
That is not difficulty. That is not challenging. That is not fun or engaging. That is retarded AI.
[QUOTE=Excalibuurr;48741188]I've never played Fallout/Elder Scrolls games on consoles before, but everyone who says "just use the console" seems to imply that the debug console is available on consoles, is that the case?[/QUOTE]
No it isn't, but it's possible that might change since Fallout 4 aims to bring in mods to the console versions, but we really don't know yet what's going to be capable.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48741135]we aren't living in a hypothetical world, profit is never assured and 1 flop can kill a company or franchise
hard games do not consistently sell well, they can make small profits sure but you will never see a game on bethesda's scale and level of polish with dark souls difficulty unless technology makes it feasible on a small budget
and do not state the witcher 3, it isn't a particularly hard game and there isn't really much to do in the open world aside from clear the icons from the map (which are often just a few boxes or a mound of respawning enemies)[/QUOTE]
Profit is never assured, you're right, but I know of no evidence that says hard games don't consistently sell well. Most hardcore franchises I can think of sell well consistently. Anyway I'd love to keep debating this but shit's going down in my life now so I gotta peace out just in case, certainly can't be bothered to worry about an internet debate at the moment
to sum up what I think on this
Profit = necessary for the continuation of art. Hard game /=/ no profit. Hard game /=/ less profit. Profit /=/ main goal. Mass appeal /=/ the best game. A well balanced game that offers the right amount of challenge = good.
Difficulty is good for Fallout and the post apocalypse genre in general.
Those are my thoughts, think of them what you will, I probably shouldn't care either way talk to you later
[QUOTE=J!NX;48740830]tbh games can't be compared to art because there are no rules to making art, and there are no rules to making a video game. the difference however is that [sp]video games have objectivity and film and art does not[/sp]. You can make an objectively good or bad game, or an objectively bad level, but there is still plenty of subjectivity to go around in games.[/QUOTE]
you know nothing about filmmaking then, or video games
While I don't think they shouldn't do what they are doing because it works, I'm sure people would appreciate it if they added a hardcore mode that has some balancing put into it.
AAA companies that take the time to do proper difficulty settings usually end up doing them better than fans, a lot of difficulty "mods" end up feeling like a weird mod that needs way more work before its even something playable.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48741124]As long as there's a $ there at all I don't care how many of them there are. But I'm way less money centric than others. Like I just view mansions as a waste of time and I think companies pursuing money till the end of time (and to be fair there I kinda can't talk shit because they're companies, that's what companies do even if they hound it excessively), is a big fat waste if they don't do anything good with the money.
[/QUOTE]
Cost of making Fallout 4 = $$$$
Money made by making Fallout 4 hard like Dark Souls = $$
I.e. Making the game costs money, not making that money back means people lose their jobs and companies shut down. Mansions are a waste of money, sure I can agree, keeping food on the table and the company in business is what they're doing.
Fallout is not the series I think of when I think of "difficult wasteland survival game"
That's actually Wasteland. Fallout was always a easier type game
[editline]22nd September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=autodesknoob;48741239]you know nothing about filmmaking then, or video games[/QUOTE]
Film making rules are broken all the time on purpose to make better films or to throw the savvy viewer off.
The rules in film making are hard but not unbreakable.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48740831]those were games of their time, cost 60 bucks a pop, and had to be hard as fuck to make players play them over and over
gaming culture was niche as fuck back then and games didnt cost nearly as much as they do now to create, companies put themselves in that position because players expect more of them at every release[/QUOTE]
there are plenty of fairly hard games that sell still. hitman, metal gear, arma, stalker, dead space, god of war, dark souls, etc.
[QUOTE=butre;48741290]there are plenty of fairly hard games that sell still. [B] hitman, metal gear[/B], [I]arma, stalker[/I], [B]dead space, god of war,[/B] [I]dark souls[/I], etc.[/QUOTE]
Bolded aren't hard.
Italics sold well for niche titles except Dark Souls is a stand out but that's because it stands out in excellent design choices, not in difficulty.
I say that any companion AI advanced enough to not be annoying to keep alive is probably sentient and shouldn't be put in danger.
[QUOTE=J!NX;48735305]I don't know about you but playing those games without those are actually possible. they don't actually "NEED" to exist you know. Bethesda can't simply do what modders do, modders will always be able to improve upon the original game. There are hundreds of mods that add useful features to the game, and Bethesda is more busy making the game to try and compensate for everything that "Will be modded in anyways". Even a huge studio has a limited power.
and menu improvements are a way different thing than something like this, dogmeats mortality is a subjective change, a menu change is an objective one. There are going to be tons of mods that improve upon any game objectively. No matter what, every single game that exists has something that could be improved with the help of a mod. It's impossible to make a game that has NO NEED for any fixes, that's completely impossible.
Subjective changes, there are so many different things that subjectively should be changed, depending on every single person playing it. Some people want this that way, some people want that this way. There are so many different things that people could like or dislike, that if bethesda tried making a setting for [B]every little thing[/B] they wouldn't have a game. It's better if Bethesda actually just made a decision and then stuck with it, instead of having a checkbox for something as minor, as, god for fucking bid, a stupid dog. They need to stop tweaking each feature at SOME point, and no matter how good the feature is, it's up to modders to decide what to improve, otherwise the game would become a Frankenstein of unneeded features and tweaks. In addition to all of this, if you spend too much time working on something that's already acceptable or better, and keep trying to improve what works, you're going to detract time away from everything else you could be working.
Also, I thought sky UI was pretty over rated, even if it did have "Improved features". It absolutely doesn't improve the game as good as people make it out to be. Saying it "Should just be a part of a game" doesn't really make sense. If they were to tweak menu's too much while making the game they would make everything WORSE, which is [I]exactly the point of modders[/I].[/QUOTE]
I remember before Skyrim was released, I saw an image going around of what 50 different toggles would look like. Skyrim did have a pretty retarded UI though.
[QUOTE=Excalibuurr;48741188]I've never played Fallout/Elder Scrolls games on consoles before, but everyone who says "just use the console" seems to imply that the debug console is available on consoles, is that the case?[/QUOTE]
No it's just that the great majority of the (lasting) playerbase of TES/Fallout is on PC due to console commands and mods.
Doesn't mean nobody plays them on console, but console players don't stick with the game for as long as PC players do, for these reasons.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.