Ok. Then name me some that are not turn based that are doing the same thing or better than Bethesda (because while I like turn based Bethesda is the only one I've seen that try to do the same thing but with live action combat). The ones I've seen that people tend to compare to it I've played and they are not the same and don't provide the same thing I get out of Bethseda games. They are good games in general but just don't satisfy the reason I love Bethesda games. And I do realize there is room for improvement in the games). The closest I've played oddly enough no one compares, Deus Ex human revolution and it still doesn't have the wide range of choices you can do to approach a situation. Or new Vegas but that's cause they are using the same engine.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
VG247 "Fallout 4 looks more and more like a recycled Fallout 3"
- Thread starter Sithlord77
- Start date
Ok. Then name me some that are not turn based that are doing the same thing or better than Bethesda (because while I like turn based Bethesda is the only one I've seen that try to do the same thing but with live action combat). The ones I've seen that people tend to compare to it I've played and they are not the same and don't provide the same thing I get out of Bethseda games. They are good games in general but just don't satisfy the reason I love Bethesda games. And I do realize there is room for improvement in the games). The closest I've played oddly enough no one compares, Deus Ex human revolution and it still doesn't have the wide range of choices you can do to approach a situation. Or new Vegas but that's cause they are using the same engine.
See no problem with this. Give me the game now
It depends, what did you find boring about it?
If it was the world and gameplay, you'll likely find it just as boring. If it was the writing and story, you'll probably like New Vegas.
Woo-Fu
Banned
Somebody expects Bethesda to stop being Bethesda, news at 11.
As somebody who loves Fallout I have no doubt I'll like this game. Sure, Bethesda used gamebryo forever and is using something that "isn't gamebryo" but still looks like gamebryo. I'd rather they work with engines they're comfortable with, putting all their resources into gameplay, story, and world and none of it into making a new engine do what they want it to do.
As somebody who loves Fallout I have no doubt I'll like this game. Sure, Bethesda used gamebryo forever and is using something that "isn't gamebryo" but still looks like gamebryo. I'd rather they work with engines they're comfortable with, putting all their resources into gameplay, story, and world and none of it into making a new engine do what they want it to do.
I though it looked great when it was revealed, still do. Not the best from this gen or anything, but far better than F03 or NV, which is what I expected. Personally I far enjoyed 3 over NV. Mostly because of the setting, and NV was so much buggier than 3. Though I appreciate some of the improvements of NV, like modded weapons which I am glad to see being expanded upon in 4.
Overall, looks great, and am still looking forward to more info and it's eventual release.
Overall, looks great, and am still looking forward to more info and it's eventual release.
The fuck is wrong with you? You did your part, now sit the fuck back down.
Man, if videogame opinions get you so heated that you start insulting everyone, i'd love to see someone bother you in real life. What would you do, shoot the fucker?
ChasingComets
Member
But here's the dichotomy of the situation; there's nothing wrong with the aged adage of "don't fix what wasn't broken". But then we're not in 2008 anymore when Fallout 3 first came out and "Oblivion with Guns" was a fresh and new take on Fallout; given the 7 years between and a leap in technology generation, people definitely wanted more of that (missing) nextgen WOW factor. Not to mention open world games in recent years have set the bar for visual fidelity ridiculously high. (Nevermind the underlying tech for the game follows different rules)
sciencerob
Member
I actually found the opposite. I enjoyed Fall Out 3 and couldn't stand Fall Out New vegas. TRied a couple times but just didn't enjoy it that much. It felt much more drab visually than Fall out 3.
As an aside, I find it amusing the difference of opinion I have from most people. Lots of people upon hearing there seems to be a great deal of "recycling" of content seem to be perfectly fine with it. I am instead more dissapointed. Perhaps its because I'm not a huge fan of Fall Out. People on this same forum complain about COD recycling content and maps over and over but for Fall Out its okay? Not really sure why.
Snatch1414
Banned
I'm with you. The casino area was cool but other than that I don't think the landscapes/environments held a candle to "Whoa there's the Washington Monument! Holy shit I can actually go inside?"
silvermember
Banned
So bethsoft might get game of the year even for a possibly mediocre product. Good for them a lot of devs right now can only dream of being this loved that possibly releasing a bad game is hand waved.
Just imagine if this was ea or ubisoft.
I mean it is sad sad day when playerz expect mods to fix a product they paid for.
Just imagine if this was ea or ubisoft.
I mean it is sad sad day when playerz expect mods to fix a product they paid for.
Where's the like-button on neogaf?!
On topic:
I really used to think Fallout 4 would wow me greatly when it was finally revealed. I mean Skyrim looked pretty damn solid for it's time. Was eagerly looking forward to when Bethesda made the leap to current-gen. Well, I wasn't wowed at all.
saw this gameplay as well but I don't share this "looks exactly like Fallout 3" opinion.
You might say that the graphics is not up-to-date and some stuff actually really looked bad (didn't like the dogs animations in general or how the blood was done) but the overall look was still fine (enough?).
But it is definately a step up compared to Fallout 3. Maybe they would have needed 5 steps to match current AAA graphics but made only 3 steps.
natethegreat409
Member
Do you enjoy watching 40 hours of cut scenes in a 80 hour game? Cause that's what Witcher 3 felt like to me. They can keep all that fancy facial expressions and technology. All I really want is great gameplay and story.
P.S. I loved The Witcher 3, but I got irritated at watching cut scenes every 5 minutes.
Are these really the highlights of a Bethesda game?
PulseONE
Member
Immersion is the highlight of Bethesda games.
iceblade997
Member
Not played the game but wondering - how would you have preferred they convey the story without / with less cutscenes?
SlaughterX
Banned
Ehh, Fallout 3 is one of, if not my favorite game of the last gen, so as long as they can improve on each area of it, even just a little, I will be happy.
nortonff
Hi, I'm nortonff. I spend my life going into threads to say that I don't care about the topic of the thread. It's a really good use of my time.
This guy knows the deal.
SerTapTap
Member
I hate to be Concerned™ but yeah, the biggest feature so far is base building which I'm personally not interested in, the dialog building, dog-focus, NOT obsidian, no pacifist playthrough, it's all sounding a bit iffy. Might leave off the Pip Boy edition preorder and get it later after some patches.
Not too concerned about the graphical stuff (if anything this is the biggest plus other than no loading times) but I'm not seeing much to be excited about yet. All the big pluses aside from no loads seem to be for other people, not me. I don't care about the dog. I don't want to build bases. I don't want to romance companions.
Seriously. They always kind of look like crap and play...like crap. But this is the one thing they usually nail.
Not too concerned about the graphical stuff (if anything this is the biggest plus other than no loading times) but I'm not seeing much to be excited about yet. All the big pluses aside from no loads seem to be for other people, not me. I don't care about the dog. I don't want to build bases. I don't want to romance companions.
Seriously. They always kind of look like crap and play...like crap. But this is the one thing they usually nail.
Yeah. But certainly isn't the things that I highlighted.
depths20XX
Member
Yeah can't say I'm that excited for this. Bethesda games just disappoint me anymore. Fallout 3 was a dookie pile.
Human Revolution is certainly a better comparison. Both fall more into the immersive sim genre, which certainly shares some traits with video game RPG's but focus more on player agency rather than dice rolls based on character stats. RPG purists get upset as Bethesda sheds more and more of the vestigial RPG mechanics from their games, but ultimately those players need to recognize that these games are not really in the genre they want them to be and move on.
LeeRoyBrown
Banned
Dream on...
Octavianus
Banned
Really? That's always been the area where they completely fail in my book.
A town that's build around a nuke just because, another town filled with kids who somehow end up surviving on their own while they're right next to a bunch of super Mutants just because and the whole DC area looking like it was bombed yesterday even though it was supposed to be 200 years ago doesn't exactly scream "IMMERSION" to me.
Or the fact that detonating said nuke doesn't result in much other than your dad telling you that he's disappointed in you.
immortal kids aren't Immersive.
Enemies limbs literally exploding whenever you touch them isn't immersive.
The fact that people rarely express any feelings in regards to whatever your doing isn't immersive.
immortal companions aren't immersive.
etc.
"
*name drops every other 'open world' game from the past decade or so*
magnumpy
Member
it won multiple GOTY awards...
Why wouldn't the Vaults look similar to each other? I mean I get the complaint but asking Bethesda to do what no other developer does is a little bit much.
Then don't do any of it. I'm pretty sure you'll get the same exploration/discovery that you got in previous Bethesda games.
No. People complain about the stupidest fucking shit. Its pathetic and alot of people having some growing up to do.
Moon_frogger
Member
hmm this is interesting since I and others made similar comments during the initial reveal and were bombarded by hordes of bethesda apologists calling us blind, stupid, entitled, delusional, etc. Nice to know I may possibly not be any of those things.
Solid Samus
Banned
I should make a thread for all the positive impressions to the same demo (read: all of the other impressions to the same demo) and see how many of you show up to the party...
Seriously, this thread, man.
Seriously, this thread, man.
Moon_frogger
Member
why not just link some and we can discuss it? no need for another thread, really.
The hope is real.
I'm curious, I know you're not a fan of Bethesda and you've made that clear but will you be playing Fallout 4? I'd be curious to see if they'd answer some of your criticisms.
Solid Samus
Banned
because the clickbait title of this thread, stemming from a source few would trust if it didn't let them confirm their cynicism with zero effort, has already colored this thread and its contents profoundly. Once the dumpster's been lit on fire, the trash is gonna stink like hell, even if you put it out.
Seriously, the actual article itself is a damn joke. It reads like VG24/7 didn't think Fallout 4 was CoD enough, and therefore, despite pretty much everything those of us with capable eyesight have seen, it's the exact same game as Fallout 3. And people are taking the bait. No, they're not just taking the bait. They're not actually reading the article, not actually considering the source or the nature of the article's text. They're reading the headline, and letting it confirm all of their darkest shitty suspicions because that's all it takes for them, and like I said, I doubt half of 'em show up to the party when all the rest of the impressions turn up positive, because this is the only one they ever needed to color their expectations.
BTW, some positive impressions have already been linked, alongside repeated assertions from literally everyone else in here who's actually seen the same demo that it was actually pretty solid and that the game looked noticibly better than Fallout 3, in every respect. (Something those of us who have seen decent non-potatostream footage of the game already know.) And check out all the discussion that shit created yo! pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffft
His hostility aside, RustedPieces was on goddamn point with some of what he said. Look at this.
Can that shit even be disputed at this point? I'm not gonna sugarcoat it, this thread is chock full of some of the weakest commentary and discussion I've ever seen on this forum, full stop. Just like the last one. And the ones before it. It'll be a great day when we can have a Fallout thread that isn't plagued by this shit. Sadly that'll probably have to wait til November.
The fact that the game isn't looking like it's going to push systems too hard makes me really hesitant to upgrade from my radeon 7850 to a 970 this year. FO4 is the only game I plan to play on PC this fall and Q1/Q2 is already stacked with PS4/Xb1 exclusives that I'll play. I kind of want my GPU to last me until the NEXT gen of consoles and I'm scared that the 970 might start to show its age by the end of this cycle. By the time that I'll be getting any juice out of the 970 there will probably be better options out there.
Hmm....
Hmm....
joecanada
Member
in call of duty, you may have a character animation in SP where they flinch from one shot, but they dont die (i havent played SP in forever) but in MP one bullet from a MG doesnt do shit to them, they stand there and shoot you right back in the face.
Moon_frogger
Member
ok, now that I've scrolled through 8 pages of this thread to find literally one other link to a gamespot(lol) video I have to say, congrats. You pretty much trolled me. Googling turned up one more impressions piece which makes the observation that the combat and HUD is nearly identical to fallout 3. So, I'll ask you again. Care to link to all these other impressions that contradict the article linked in this thread? I can wait.
Look, I love every bethesda game since morrowind. I'm going to love fallout 4. nobody is denying that this is basically a prettier looking fallout 3. It's just not, mechanically and visually, the leap some of us were hoping for after waiting almost 7 years. It's ok that we are critiquing something you love. It's not a personal attack. We love it too, that's why we're critiquing.
Great news.
Moon_frogger
Member
I'm just worried about the release state. If it's as bad as well....all their other games im waiting at least 6 months before I get it. Again, I love Bethesda games but their track record for multi platform releases is terrible.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
I agree with you but I think its also possible that the shit engine they are using can't handle modern animation and character rigs.
I mean, that and laziness are the only things I can think of to explain the shit animation. Its not like there is a shortage of talented animators out there that can take mocapped animations and tweak them for game use.
Solid Samus
Banned
You got me. I went a bit too far and I'll take the L. For some reason I was under the impression that there were more impressions out, and I was considering the posts in here from other people at Gamescom that dispute VG247's claims as being impressions of a kind as well. More impressions are hitting as we speak, though (just watched one from GamesRadar posted 30 minutes ago), and nothing I've seen so far echoes the negativity seen in VG247's impressions. And to be fair, the Gamespot video is an interview of Danny O'Dwyer, whose word I'm more inclined to take at face value than the word of someone at VG247 who clearly sought to stir the pot considering the actual content of the article. I'm watching another video right now that describes the footage they've seen as being a lot like Fallout 3, but implies that that's due to the scenario Beth chose to show and is not necessarily indicative of the entire game.
At any rate, it's not like I never criticize Bethesda, or think that they're beyond criticism. I've made some genuinely scathing posts toward them in the past. It's just that in threads like these I see a lot of people jumping at the chance to post analysis that's so far off from what I've seen that I've got to wonder how many people in here have seen any footage of this game beyond the compressed and unflattering E3 stream. Every time I read that someone thinks this game isn't a noticeable leap up from last-gen Fallout games in terms of animation, combat mechanics, visual fidelity, and interactivity, it takes me off guard, like what? I mean, to each his own, but damn, I don't know what some of y'all were expecting, and I can hit up Youtube right now and see Xbox One footage of Fallout 4 that's a hell of a lot better looking visually, and a hell of a lot further removed from what I remember Fallout 3 and New Vegas looking and playing like (having played both of them again in the last year), than many people in here would have me believe. And the original combat trailer alone has me wondering how anyone could think that the gunplay hasn't seen significant and obvious improvement. I can and have posted actual examples but in these threads it feels like every new page acts as a discussion reset and everything falls back to square one. I really do personally think that this game's visual presentation is up to the standards of a 7th gen game, considering all that that engine is expected to handle - I bet the visuals could be better if it weren't for its aging Gamebryo backbone, and they'll likely improve with iteration, but I don't understand personally how or why so many people are so off-put by what we've seen.
Ok, to put in perspective, I said name me another game to this quote from you:
Ok, now I'm going to mention at least the RPGs most popularly compared.
Witcher. No. 3 comes closest but you are still stuck playing one character, with his personality, and playing how he would tackle a situation (you are not given a situation and just told figure out how you want to resolve it). Witcher does not have the same freedom that Bethesda games give you. If you really think they are the same type game, why do you think that there is such controversy with some preferring one over the other? They really do not cater to the same type tastes. Witcher feels more gamey and less roleplay like. Even iwth the choices you make it's more of a figure out which choice is more appropriate making choices feel gamey vs. play how you think your character would approach the situation.
Dragon's Dogma. HA! No fucking way. The story wasn't even that great either (I could care less about the story) The only reason it is a good game is it has good combat, good enough that it really made up for being a poor RPG. You don't even get to choose much of how your character responds to other characters. You just do the quests given you. It's not one where you are roleplaying your character, your pretty much given your motivation by the game. I loved this game for the combat but I didn't even care to finish it cause that was the only reason it was fun (and crafting). And it was great fun. Just no point in caring about finishing hte story or anything.
Dark Souls. Ok, to be fair I haven't played this but I've been curious and have asked around a lot on what type game it is and the impression I get is this game is the type of RPG where it's all action and not much RP part (but it's fantasy so it's considered RPG). It's mostly focusing on combat. ONce again, not the same kind of freedom.
Deus Ex? At least this game does seem to offer more variety in how you approach a situation. Honestly, more appropriate than the ones I listed above. And yet some how I have never seen anyone compare the two. Even though this is more appropriate. Seems to me the people trying to hate on Bethesda don't even get what people want out of Bethesda games when it's the ones above that get compared (none are the same type game or are even trying to be. Witcher 3 was inspired mosty just by the true open world but still was doing its own thing other than that) and they can't even think of this game that comes a lot closer than any of the above ones. Still don't get to play your own character and you're given the characters motivations on why he's doing what he's doing (a big part of Bethesda games is making your own character and making your own motivations for your character and how he or she wants to approach the world).
Honestly, if you think every other RPG does what Bethesda games do well you obviously don't get why people love Bethesda games.
I'd have had more respect for your opinion if you could have listed ones that maybe actually done what a lot of bethesda fans like about bethesda games well rather than try to claim every other RPG is better. Cause no, every other RPG isn't even trying to do what Bethesda does (most the ones above save maybe Deus Ex are not the same type game at all). THe fact you think they all do means you don't even get why people love the game and find it so immersive. At least people who are bitching that Vegas is far better (and it is) understand what is so alluring about the games. Also, I say non turn based cause other than combat type, turn based RPGs are a much better comparison for Bethesda games than live action games. It is just I like the combo of hte live action with the more turn based philosophy on what an RPG is (most live action RPGs just focus on the gameplay and less on the RP part).
I have yet to encounter anything super similar that really scratches the same itch.
Actually, I'll ask this. What RPGs that aren't turn based out there allow me to up skills that are not combat based and let you use those skills to affect how you play the game?
Because I think that in itself is an important distinction. Most RPGs I see compared are ones that are very combat focused (with maybe some dialogue to choose how the story goes) but don't really focus on you being able to approach situations using skills that aren't combat based. And if they do have dialogue choicess it's more you just get to try to pick the choice that is best or where you want the story to branch to.
You aren't using a skill that you have been improving in your character to solve a problem. You aren't able to say, "My character is really good at medicine so she/he'd recognize how to properly dress this wound to make sure it heals" or he is so charismatic he'll be able to persaude this character to see his point of view. Or he knows enough about tech to be able to tell this person a better way to handle dealing with a piece of technology.
You're not able to say, I want a character that is really good at smooth talking or is really good at science and have that affect how your character is able to solve problems. Turn based games have this, true. But that's cause they are based on D&D style rpg, same really as Bethesda games. But I haven't really encountered many live action RPGs that aren't focused mostly on combat if not all on combat.
And yes, Bethesda weakens this from many turn based games that do do this better. But they do a combo of it and live action that I just haven't seen elsewhere. And Obsidian took their game and showed how you could do a much better compromise that did both the live action combat while still staying a very good D&D (vs. videogame RPG) style RPG well (for example my medicine example was ripped straight off of something you an do in New Vegas).
Because I think that in itself is an important distinction. Most RPGs I see compared are ones that are very combat focused (with maybe some dialogue to choose how the story goes) but don't really focus on you being able to approach situations using skills that aren't combat based. And if they do have dialogue choicess it's more you just get to try to pick the choice that is best or where you want the story to branch to.
You aren't using a skill that you have been improving in your character to solve a problem. You aren't able to say, "My character is really good at medicine so she/he'd recognize how to properly dress this wound to make sure it heals" or he is so charismatic he'll be able to persaude this character to see his point of view. Or he knows enough about tech to be able to tell this person a better way to handle dealing with a piece of technology.
You're not able to say, I want a character that is really good at smooth talking or is really good at science and have that affect how your character is able to solve problems. Turn based games have this, true. But that's cause they are based on D&D style rpg, same really as Bethesda games. But I haven't really encountered many live action RPGs that aren't focused mostly on combat if not all on combat.
And yes, Bethesda weakens this from many turn based games that do do this better. But they do a combo of it and live action that I just haven't seen elsewhere. And Obsidian took their game and showed how you could do a much better compromise that did both the live action combat while still staying a very good D&D (vs. videogame RPG) style RPG well (for example my medicine example was ripped straight off of something you an do in New Vegas).
Ugh...
For a moment I thought that at least this time Bethesda would look to the original Fallout games (or, you know, New Vegas) and decided to not go the Bethesda-route and offer a classic Fallout-ending where you get shown the consequences of your actions and that's it.
But noooo, of course it's going to have an open ending with post-ending gameplay. And no level cap so you can make über-characters with every perk in the game. Fuck this.