Bethesda feels the pressure as petition to break silence in regards to Fallout 4 reaches 11 signatur - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Falubii;44647009]They could have, but they generally like to not say anything about games in development (including commenting on fake things). They've always been that way. I think Todd Howard likes to personally reveal this stuff. I really still do not understand how so many people convinced themselves that it was legit when the whole ordeal was way out of character for Bethesda.[/QUOTE] I just wanted to see where it was going.

[QUOTE=lavacano;44647044]I just wanted to see where it was going.[/QUOTE] Same here.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;44637677]I still don't get how Skyrim is really that much more "simplified" than Oblivion. Just because the dungeons were all copy-paste Draugr shit or the side quests weren't as good doesn't mean it was simplified. Mechanically, it isn't that different, and you cannot tell me what streamlining they did do was a bad thing. I get we all love Morrowind and Oblivion here, but Morrowind in particular has aged pretty poorly on combat. What gives it strength is the compelling and different world it is set in, where as Skyrim and Oblivion are both styled off the generic fantasy world popular at the time. But that is what scares me. Skyrim isn't simplified, just not as developed and thought out. You could see some creeping aspects of this in Fallout 3's metro-dungeons. But at the same time, Fallout 3 has (in my opinion) the best atmosphere of any Fallout 3 game. It really set up a compelling world, but it lacks the detailed side-quests and characters that Obsidian brought to the table. In a perfect world, it would be a joint effort with Bethesda's design aspects and gameplay, with Obsidian writing the quests. But alas this world is imperfect.[/QUOTE] there are two weapon skills TWO WEAPON SKILLS [editline]26th April 2014[/editline] using a hammer is literally the same as using a dagger in skyrim. how is that not simplified. wtf

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;44647490]there are two weapon skills TWO WEAPON SKILLS [editline]26th April 2014[/editline] using a hammer is literally the same as using a dagger in skyrim. how is that not simplified. wtf[/QUOTE] And in Oblivion, there's Blade and Blunt. Your point?

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;44647513]And in Oblivion, there's Blade and Blunt. Your point?[/QUOTE] he brought up morrowind in the post, but ok just for you - what about attributes

Oh boy, Internet Activism!

[QUOTE=AaronM202;44635125]Bethesda treated the IP far, far, FAR far better than interplay did towards the end.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=lavacano;44639155]i'm not sure if you were paying any actual attention to the series but Interplay's handling of the IP has gone downhill from Tactics onward (fortunately Tactics was still at least decent) sure Bethesda including shit like Jet in FO3 is weird when you dig deep into the lore but it don't hold a fuckin' candle to the Burned Game.[/QUOTE] I'm not commenting on the quality of Fallout 3, It was a decent game. New Vegas was a better sequel if we're being honest. Fallout 3 had way too many inconsistencies and was way too serious to be considered a sequel to Fallout 2. It was a decent enough romp through the post apocalypse but not really a fallout game. I'm glad that some people who actually wanted to try to make fallout games have the IP but 3 is very far from the originals. I really wouldn't like a 4 with a plot like 3's with zero consistency. Oh also you forgot, the brotherhood of steel in 3 are not even close to what they were in the originals, a neutral party working for personal gain. It's even stated that if someone defects from their goals in the brother hood they'd be dealt with. Idk seems like a big plot hole there, same with the fact that they had a giant robot which was the dumbest thing.

[QUOTE=mchapra;44648214]I'm not commenting on the quality of Fallout 3, It was a decent game. New Vegas was a better sequel if we're being honest. Fallout 3 had way too many inconsistencies and was way too serious to be considered a sequel to Fallout 2. It was a decent enough romp through the post apocalypse but not really a fallout game. I'm glad that some people who actually wanted to try to make fallout games have the IP but 3 is very far from the originals. I really wouldn't like a 4 with a plot like 3's with zero consistency. Oh also you forgot, the brotherhood of steel in 3 are not even close to what they were in the originals, a neutral party working for personal gain. It's even stated that if someone defects from their goals in the brother hood they'd be dealt with. Idk seems like a big plot hole there, same with the fact that they had a giant robot which was the dumbest thing.[/QUOTE] The brotherhood of steel being different from the previous one was actually explained in-game. Elder Lyons decided to run things differently - there are even outcasts that disagreed with him and wanted it to be more like the original Brotherhood of steel. It's not a plothole at all.

[QUOTE=nightlord;44648824]The brotherhood of steel being different from the previous one was actually explained in-game. Elder Lyons decided to run things differently - there are even outcasts that disagreed with him and wanted it to be more like the original Brotherhood of steel. It's not a plothole at all.[/QUOTE] Calling it a plothole is a bit too much but yeah If you play the first two members are pretty brainwashed and dogmatic so even if he tried to do things differently he'd not just have a majority agreeing with him.

"Only 11 signatures" Good (?) news : 370 now

Fallout 3 felt like it was designed by a bunch of people who had Fallout 1 and 2 explained to them by someone who never played the games in that they got many of the major themes right but screwed up a lot of fine details that people who are familiar with the first two noticed readily. It was a fun game that I have a lot of hours logged in and I hate to rag on it because it really was a great game but it was a huge departure from Fallout 1 and 2. [QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;44635459]I really hope Obsidian is on the team, because from the simplification of their games I'm kind of fearful for how a Bethesda-only Fallout 4 will turn. Unless they really take a look at what New Vegas did better than Fallout 3 I honestly don't know if I would buy it if it's a simplified game with tons of essential NPCs on the Creation Engine.[/QUOTE] Essential NPCs are actually kind of a good idea. Being able to kill all or even most NPCs can lead to the game being unfinishable if you accidentally murder the wrong person. I fully understand where they were coming from with that.

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;44647490] using a hammer is literally the same as using a dagger in skyrim. how is that not simplified. wtf[/QUOTE] warhammer is two handed dagger is one handed they use completely different skills

[QUOTE=bisousbisous;44634253]HL3 is kept under tighter wraps than top secret government info.[/QUOTE] We need an HL3 Edward Snowden!

Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe Bethesda wasn't trying go make a clone of the two previous games? Maybe they didn't want Fallout 3 to be like 1 and 2 and they preferred to add their own unique touch to the game.

[QUOTE=mchapra;44648891]Calling it a plothole is a bit too much but yeah If you play the first two members are pretty brainwashed and dogmatic so even if he tried to do things differently he'd not just have a majority agreeing with him.[/QUOTE] Well, that's why the Outcasts exist. Most of Lyons' men are implied to have more loyalty in him than the brotherhood itself or were sourced from other communities. (There's the whole thing about Lyons rescuing several children from The Pitt who later grew up to become brotherhood soldiers themselves.) That or they didn't just have the time to leave when the outcasts staged a coup. And then there's the implication of some kind of internal strife - Lyons apparently sends BoS personnel who he feels have personally wronged him to Project Purity, to their annoyance. Plus instead of being angry and dogmatic, generic brotherhood grunts tend to be incredibly passive-aggressive. They also kill a shitton of unruly civilians at one point in Broken Steel and try to cover it up. Make what you will of that.

Am i the only one who thinks it would be less realistic and believable if the brotherhood [b] didn't [/b] have at least one chapter running off to become heroes?, i for one would find it incredibly hard to adhere to a code that encouraged a callous view of people in peril if i was surrounded by suffering. if they feel they have the firepower and equipment to make a difference, there would certainly be cases where empathy would override whatever zeal and brainwashing they had been subjected to- especially as the events of new vegas show its becoming more and more apparent the brotherhood's original strategy is failing as time goes on.

[QUOTE=Falubii;44649588]Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe Bethesda wasn't trying go make a clone of the two previous games? Maybe they didn't want Fallout 3 to be like 1 and 2 and they preferred to add their own unique touch to the game.[/QUOTE] Then why call it Fallout?

[QUOTE=papaya;44649256]warhammer is two handed dagger is one handed they use completely different skills[/QUOTE] I think he means like a mace or and one-handed hammer

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;44647594]he brought up morrowind in the post, but ok just for you - what about attributes[/QUOTE] I will agree that the removal of attributes was not a good desicion and removed a lot of good depth from the game.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;44648916] Essential NPCs are actually kind of a good idea. Being able to kill all or even most NPCs can lead to the game being unfinishable if you accidentally murder the wrong person. I fully understand where they were coming from with that.[/QUOTE] Essential NPCs are awful and absolutely not a good idea. Main characters stand out enough that if you decide to be an idiot and whack everyone you see in the face with a greatsword then you probably deserve to not be able to finish the main quest. This leads to random Imperial or Stormcloak generals in butt-fuck nowhere to be unkillable, so if you say fuck the civil war quest and just decide to roam around and find their camp in the middle of nowhere you CAN'T kill these seemingly random people. Meanwhile in New Vegas there is one unkillable NPC and you can and are encouraged to kill all of the other main faction leaders. That's the kind of stuff I'm afraid of. There seems to be a lot of misconception as to why people have grievances. The big problem I have is that of all the great things Obsidian did in New Vegas, Bethesda still extended a giant middle finger to them for getting 1 metacritic score lower than they needed to get their extra funding/license continuation or whatever their bonus was. Then they went on and made Skyrim without picking up on ANY of the improvements Obsidian made and the acclaim it got over Fallout 3 that Bethesda could have easily put into Skyrim. So we still have cardboard companions, a crap hyper linear main quest (more linear than Fallout 3's imo) ect ect.

I know it's my personal opinion, but I didn't like how they took out classes in skyrim. I love the idea of creating my own character with his own innate strengths and weaknesses, deciding what stats to add to beyond just health, magicka and stamina, and playing a specific way. I wish they would bring back the daggerfall creation system - being able to give your own class special abilities like expertise in certain weapons or immunities to certain types of magic, which would give you combat advantages but make it harder to level was really awesome, as well as being able to balance them out by adding different disadvantages like phobias to certain enemies or prohibited materials, weaknesses, etc. It really makes me feel like my character was my own to start with, unlike skyrim where yeah you have to level stuff up but you can pretty much pick up anything and be able to get good at it. I feel like I would like the newer fallouts less as well if they approach it the same way as skyrim.

[QUOTE=Falubii;44649588]Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe Bethesda wasn't trying go make a clone of the two previous games? Maybe they didn't want Fallout 3 to be like 1 and 2 and they preferred to add their own unique touch to the game.[/QUOTE] I think Fallout 3 has it's uniqueness to it.

FO3 was a lot like Fallout 1 in tone, actually. Even if it wasn't particularly well written like Fallout 1, it had the same feelings of hopelessness, the wasteland felt desolate, and it felt quite hostile. New Vegas was way better written and is probably a better game overall, and even though I probably won't go back to Fallout 3, I still found Fallout 3 more interesting because of the environment and the setup - a parallel that actually matches my feelings about Fallout 1 vs Fallout 2. Fallout 2 had more content, was more refined and overall a better game, but the fact that things were rebuilt and more established made it feel a lot less appealing to me over the grim, disturbing feeling of Fallout 1. Even if Fallout 3 didn't totally manage to capture the feelings of foreboding and uneasiness of the first game, it at least emulated the "fucked" aspect of the first game pretty decently - which is probably why I prefer it over NV. Although the Fallout 3 ambient music was ass, it felt like it was depressing explore music cut from Oblivion or something which didn't quite match the atmosphere.

People actually expecting anything to come from an online petition are so heavily blinded by optimism. A higher up company like Bethesda aren't going to release details to a game because some idiots behind their computers wanted to. Chances are the game isn't even happening so why bother.

[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;44652437]Then why call it Fallout?[/QUOTE] Same universe doesn't have to mean exact same tone.

How about everyone stops with these fucking petitions and just let developers do what they do.

[QUOTE=nightlord;44634741]Fallout 3 was the first game in a new series, really. They had to make almost everything from scratch and had nothing they could build upon other than story. Obviously the next game in the series (New vegas) would be an improvement, especially when quite a few of the things they used were already done for them.[/QUOTE] THIS. I have to bring this up in every anti-Fallout 3 argument. Imagine if bethesda had an extra 18 months (On top of the 4 it took for Fallout 3). I've always looked at New Vegas as a standalone expansion, using the same engine and utilizing a vast amount of Fo3 assets. [editline]28th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=RustledJimmys;44666029]People actually expecting anything to come from an online petition are so heavily blinded by optimism. A higher up company like Bethesda aren't going to release details to a game because some idiots behind their computers wanted to. Chances are the game isn't even happening so why bother.[/QUOTE] Oh god don't be such a baby. They purchased the rights to the ENTIRE series and have said on many occasions they have every intent to make a sequel, [B][I]why the fuck wouldn't they[/I][/B].

I actually have FNV, but it crashes on startup no matter what I do :'( I really want to play it :saddowns: