Support NeoGAF

[Fahzgoolin]

Yes, let me bow down before him and his avatar picture real quick lol.

Yeah, cuz that's exactly what I'm saying. /s

It's called respecting someone, not only cuz they are a fellow human being, but because they obviously have experience in the RPG genre.

 

[HStallion]

haha I really admire the STALKER series but if we're being critical of bethesda jank then shadow of chernobyl is really not the banner you should be championing here. If anything STALKER proves just how hard bethesda-type games are to develop.

I wasn't talking about jank but in general when responding to that poster.

 

[aadiboy]

Eh. try moving random objects in TW3, go away, come back to them and see if they're still there. TW3 and Bethesda games have very different priorities

 

[onemanasylum]

It turns out that when you make a game with as many complexities (incredibly detailed AI compared to other games, tons of physics objects in every cell, etc) as Bethesda games, you have lots of bugs.

People like playing the games for the physics objects and AI complexities, so obviously they have to stay, and they're gonna cause bugs.

It's the nature of the beast.

Nobody has ever made a game with the specific complexities of a Bethesda game and NOT had bugs. Any open world is gonna have bugs. STALKER might just be the buggiest game of all time.

Nonsense, and it is not just about bugs, Jank is not just buggy. Animations, controls, movement....There is no excuse because their games are big. Also how do you know no one made a game as complex? I don;t believe this at all. GTA 5 and it's AI routines must be massive to code for instance.

Players in Bethesda games move like robots, and look awful.

 

[AWizardDidIt]

Interactivity is meaningless without reactivity.

1.) that's a personal preference, not an objective one
2.) Bethesda games are incredibly reactive in the engine sense (everything has realistic physics, everything has permanence in the world, npcs are all unique and can be killed at a whim). They're not reactive in a story sense but it's pretty clear bethesda doesn't put a ton of resources into that.

 

[To Far Away Times]

It's generally forgiven due to the scope of their games. I played 250+ hours across Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Skyrim and I encountered two major glitches where I fell through the world but other than that I really didn't come across too many problems.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

We are at a point where people defend Bethesda by saying "well, their games have ALWAYS been buggy as shit, of course the new one will be buggy as shit too!".
They don't have to worry about anything.

Yeah, At least before they could be messed with because of the systems in place like morrowind, and even oblivion, skyrim is when stuff started being really streamlined down and after Fallout 4 was gutted of any rpg dialogue/quest elements, and puddle deep "perks" there is less reason for the jank. I'm half expecting ES6 to be an action game that just lets you choose between hits with sword, or throws fireball.

I mean at least when New Vegas freaks the fuck out you can see a questflowchart.jpg and somewhat understand lol.

 

[DocSeuss]

Yeah, cuz that's exactly what I'm saying. /s

It's called respecting someone, not only cuz they are a fellow human being, but because they obviously have experience in the RPG genre.

But since the post Fantastapotamus is talking about refers to Bethesda games as FPSes, what, exactly, is your point? Who gives a fuck if Fantastapotamus has an avatar of Planescape Torment? That has nothing to do with the complexity of a Bethesda game.

Define "most complex". Not trying to be a smartass but I honestly don't know what you mean by that.



Mind going into a bit more detail?

That's ultimately down to AI and physics objects. No game has the sheer density of moving parts that a Bethesda game has. Nobody even comes close. That's where the bugs come from. Most of them can be tracked to how the game is handling the tracking of all these objects at once.

The rest come down to typical game bugs and typical open world game bugs.

Nonsense, and it is not just about bugs, Jank is not just buggy. Animations, controls, movement....There is no excuse because their games are big. Also how do you know no one made a game as complex? I don;t believe this at all. GTA 5 and it's AI routines must be massive to code for instance.

Players in Bethesda games move like robots, and look awful.

Remember, we're talking about games where every single character has an explicit inventory. It's not like a GTA game, where they randomly generate a bunch of generic NPCs who can drop items from a specific table (usually just money and a gun). In Bethesda games, these characters are:

1) wearing clothes (DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS FOR A CHARACTER IN A GAME TO WEAR CLOTHES WITHOUT CLIPPING? NOW IMAGINE EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER DOING THAT. THE COMPLEXITY ON DISPLAY IS MIND-BOGGLING)
2) carrying items they can use in the environment
3) have actual preferences for items and can loot other corpses and use that equipment
4) live in a specific location and have entire routines based around those locations
5) have basic physical needs, primarily sleep, and full day/night cycles that can be disrupted, giving the player a significant degree of freedom
6) has their own unique dialogue lines/voices/etc (not true of every NPC, see the "arrow to the knee" guards). About half the characters can carry a conversation of some kind.
7) has different personality values that determine not just whether they'll flee, attack, be friendly, but WHEN they will do all of these things as well.
8) will behave differently based on injuries sustained.

A game like GTA just summons one of its many randomly-generated NPCs, who can play from a set of dialogue that any NPC can access, who only has one or two items that can drop upon death, and... that's it. They only have three states of mind: neutral, panic, and aggression. GTA's AI is vastly simpler, the amount of moving parts is far less. Bethesda's is far more advanced.

A lot of this has to avoid traditional scripting too--they don't make these heavily curated sequences where everything can be polished to perfection.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

I'm not hesitant at all, it is just plainly obvious why Bethesda's RPGs are unique. They have a freedom, variety and interactivity that you don't see in other games. Other games may do these things better than Bethesda does, but they don't do all of them better than Bethesda does.

They have been doing that since Morrowind, arguably since Daggerfall.
Freedom is a very vague term because Fallout 4 didn't offer me a lot of freedom. If you don't like shooting at people, there's not much else you can do. Since they severely handicapped all other stats and made them basically redundant. I can't play as a silver tongued merchant that talks his way out of most situations. I can't play as an idiot who can't even talk but can hack everything he encounters. I can play as a guy who is at the very least decent with all types of guns. And sometimes I can sneak.

Variety? How? What variety is there to be found in Fallout 4. You get a bunch of different guns, which is cool, but in what ways does the game change from minute 1 (in which you get handed a power armor and a minigun) and minute 59? You have a more powerful power armor and a modded minigun now. Morrowind had more variety than Fallout 4.

By interactivity I presume you mean the "you can drag items around and they stay there" which is impressive....but they already did that. A bunch of times. Is it really impressive that yes, +10 years later they are still able to do that?

And again, ALL the stuff you mentioned even if we were to agree that it's still all great in Fallout 4...they have been doing that for decades. It's like being impressed that GTA V is a 3D game set in an open world.

 

[Euphor!a]

The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games did just about everything the Fall Out games under Bethsada did years before and on a much more complex and impressive scale. They aren't even true RPG games but they certainly handle a lot of RPG elements better.

No, not really. STALKER doesn't have much variety in the things you can do nor the freedom.

 

[Fahzgoolin]

The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games did just about everything the Fall Out games under Bethsada did years before and on a much more complex and impressive scale. They aren't even true RPG games but they certainly handle a lot of RPG elements better.

Agreed in the sense that a lot of people say that Fallout 4 is a decent shooter in an open world. STALKER does those things a lot better IMO.

It turns out that when you make a game with as many complexities (incredibly detailed AI compared to other games, tons of physics objects in every cell, etc) as Bethesda games, you have lots of bugs.

People like playing the games for the physics objects and AI complexities, so obviously they have to stay, and they're gonna cause bugs.

It's the nature of the beast.

Nobody has ever made a game with the specific complexities of a Bethesda game and NOT had bugs. Any open world is gonna have bugs. STALKER might just be the buggiest game of all time.

I'm genuinely curious how you gather that the AI in Fallout 4 is incredibly detailed. They are incredibly stupid by my estimation and don't even handle things properly like stealth. Their AI doesn't do a good job of making you feel like you are interacting with intelligence.

 

[jtb]

At least before they could be messed with because of the systems in place like morrowind, and even oblivion, skyrim is when stuff started being really streamlined down and after Fallout 4 was gutted of and rpg dialogue/quest elements, and puddle deep "perks" there is less reason for the jank. I'm half expecting ES6 to be an action game that just lets you choose between hits with sword, or throws fireball.

but dammit, you'll be able to pick up every last fork on that table!

 

[onemanasylum]

How many people who play Skyrim love it because they can move a useless piece of bread on a table and it's in the same spot hours later? It is a waste of resources, most people would not even notice or care. That is not an excuse ans it is mismanagement of game resources. Most of that shit is totally useless.

I mean imagine calling your friend "Damn man I just smoked a doob and moved a fork, came back the next day and the fork was in the same spot, wow man first I thought it was the weed but no man it's the game I swear, tell all your friends:.

 

[HStallion]

1.) that's a personal preference, not an objective one
2.) Bethesda games are incredibly reactive in the engine sense (everything has realistic physics, everything has permanence in the world, npcs are all unique and can be killed at a whim). They're not reactive in a story sense but it's pretty clear bethesda doesn't put a ton of resources into that.

Generally I don't really get the reactivity praise. Yeah you can interact with random objects but you can't really do much with those said objects. Its not like you can grab a pot and hit someone over the head or fill it with water that needs to be boiled before drinking. Its not like Raiders are actually moving across the wasteland conquering smaller towns and you are forced to react in real time to this and drive them out. Most of the reactivity is stumbling across a random set of enemies and fighting them or a merchant in the wild you can buy some uninteresting items off of. Obviously that's enough for a lot of people but it comes off as pretty shallow to me.

 

[Euphor!a]

They have been doing that since Morrowind, arguably since Daggerfall.
Freedom is a very vague term because Fallout 4 didn't offer me a lot of freedom. If you don't like shooting at people, there's not much else you can do. Since they severely handicapped all other stats and made them basically redundant. I can't play as a silver tongued merchant that talks his way out of most situations. I can't play as an idiot who can't even talk but can hack everything he encounters. I can play as a guy who is at the very least decent with all types of guns. And sometimes I can sneak.

Variety? How? What variety is there to be found in Fallout 4. You get a bunch of different guns, which is cool, but in what ways does the game change from minute 1 (in which you get handed a power armor and a minigun) and minute 59? You have a more powerful power armor and a modded minigun now. Morrowind had more variety than Fallout 4.

By interactivity I presume you mean the "you can drag items around and they stay there" which is impressive....but they already did that. A bunch of times. Is it really impressive that yes, +10 years later they are still able to do that?

And again, ALL the stuff you mentioned even if we were to agree that it's still all great in Fallout 4...they have been doing that for decades. It's like being impressed that GTA V is a 3D game set in an open world.

I never once said you should be impressed with it, nor that they haven't been doing it for years. Just that their package, whether you like it or not, has not been done better elsewhere. I wish it had been, it would be better for everyone.

 

[riotous]

I don't know what it is that makes these games tick, but there is a vast chasm in player experience when it comes to technical performance and quality of gameplay.

And to answer your question, this is the latest build from Steam.

Well man that just sucks; I sure as hell wouldn't forgive or dismiss that amount of problems AT ALL and don't know why anyone would.

And I can relate as I was completely furious with FO3 not working for me when the game launched on PC. It was a "known bug" but the majority of people didn't encounter it.

About a year later I tried it again, and since then Bethesda RPGs have been my most played games and I've had great luck with them. I think the worst thing I've seen are pointless side quests I couldn't complete (bounties) because the enemies never re-spawned.. and then they fixed that as I haven't seen it in a year.

 

[HStallion]

No, not really. STALKER doesn't have much variety in the things you can do nor the freedom.

I totally disagree. The enemies are far more varied and interesting in the STALKER games than anything in the Fall Out games from a gameplay standpoint. Some of the labs were like playing survival horror games with the types of creative enemies you had to overcome and how the more bestial and animal enemies acted and reacted to you and other NPC's in the over world was incredible to behold.

I wish the Fallout games under Bethesda had a fraction of the freedom and creativity of the STALKER games.

 

[Com Truise]

Inhabiting a post-nuclear/high fantasy world?

Well that's vague. As I already pointed out, it's not like the world really acknowledges you pretending to be a hunter (because you only use a bow!), or a farmer (because you killed the original owner and you now pretend its all yours!), or a merchant (because uhhh, you sell a lot of stuff I guess?). The game doesn't provide gameplay systems for any of that. It doesn't simulate anything. Being able to pick up everything while not actually being able to do anything with it is not my idea of interactivity and simulation.

This is really what gets me about "so much freedom, so much ambition!" when it comes to Bethesda. In your head, you can be anything obviously, because the game itself provides you with nothing.

 

[DocSeuss]

Agreed in the sense that a lot of people say that Fallout 4 is a decent shooter in an open world. STALKER does those things a lot better IMO.



I'm genuinely curious how you gather that the AI in Fallout 4 is incredibly detailed. They are incredibly stupid by my estimation and don't even handle things properly like stealth. Their AI doesn't do a good job of making you feel like you are interacting with intelligence.

You're mistakenly equating 'good' AI with 'detailed' AI. I just edited my post above explaining some of what I meant by that. There's a lot more to it than that, but that should give you a basic explanation.

The only game that really surpasses Bethesda in terms of AI is STALKER, which is _even buggier_ and needs mods before the A-Life features are actually functional. A-Life tracks all living creatures within the Zone at all times, even when you aren't on the map.

Well that's vague. As I already pointed out, it's not like the world really acknowledges you pretending to be a hunter (because you only use a bow!), or a farmer (because you killed the original owner and you now pretend its all yours!), or a merchant (because uhhh, you sell a lot of stuff I guess?). The game doesn't provide gameplay systems for any of that. It doesn't simulate anything. Being able to pick up everything while not actually being able to do anything with it is not my idea of interactivity and simulation.

This is really what gets me about "so much freedom, so much ambition!" when it comes to Bethesda. In your head, you can be anything obviously, because the game itself provides you with nothing.

The game provides gameplay systems for some of that--more than you're suggesting, anyways. You can be a hunter because you, y'know, hunt, with a bow and arrow, skin an animal, take its skin and meat, and sell it to a merchant. You can be a traveling merchant, who maintains an inventory, sells it to people, and uses the profits to go get more stuff. You can be a farmer because you employ people in Fallout 4's settlements to grow the plants you bring them. Sure, you don't do the farming yourself, but that's because you're out gathering seeds, yo.

Would it be great if those mechanics were MORE detailed? Yeah, absolutely. I'd love to set up a stall and employ someone to sell wares I bring back from expeditions. Sure. I'd love to be able to actually farm.

 

[AWizardDidIt]

Generally I don't really get the reactivity praise. Yeah you can interact with random objects but you can't really do much with those said objects. Its not like you can grab a pot and hit someone over the head or fill it with water that needs to be boiled before drinking. Its not like Raiders are actually moving across the wasteland conquering smaller towns and you are forced to react in real time to this and drive them out. Most of the reactivity is stumbling across a random set of enemies and fighting them or a merchant in the wild you can buy some uninteresting items off of. Obviously that's enough for a lot of people but it comes off as pretty shallow to me.

No but you can pick out a random building in town and build a house there or decide you don't like how a given npc is treating you and murder them.

These don't mean a ton of things to you but think about how popular survival games are right now. It's no coincidence the people I know who fucking love bethesda games also drop hundreds of hours into those.

Well that's vague. As I already pointed out, it's not like the world really acknowledges you pretending to be a hunter (because you only use a bow!), or a farmer (because you killed the original owner and you now pretend its all yours!), or a merchant (because uhhh, you sell a lot of stuff I guess?). The game doesn't provide gameplay systems for any of that. It doesn't simulate anything. Being able to pick up everything while not actually being able to do anything with it is not my idea of interactivity and simulation.

This is really what gets me about "so much freedom, so much ambition!" when it comes to Bethesda. In your head, you can be anything obviously, because the game itself provides you with nothing.

Compare it to something like minecraft. It's a remarkable amount of sandbox freedom but the game mostly leaves it to the player to fill that in with context.

The game gives you a platform with which to tell your own stories and gives you a world that's well realized as much as it can be in terms of npc schedules, permanence of items, and freedom to build a character how you like. It's simulating an entire world. It's a very limited world, yes, but it's literally no other developer has even come close to emulating it in the way bethesda does. And it's been 11 years since Oblivion came out and has made bethesda one of the richest game companies. If it was easy to do, other developers would have tried. It's telling that no one has really come close.

 

[AWizardDidIt]

double post

 

[Fahzgoolin]

You're mistakenly equating 'good' AI with 'detailed' AI. I just edited my post above explaining some of what I meant by that. There's a lot more to it than that, but that should give you a basic explanation.

The only game that really surpasses Bethesda in terms of AI is STALKER, which is _even buggier_ and needs mods before the A-Life features are actually functional. A-Life tracks all living creatures within the Zone at all times, even when you aren't on the map.

Yeah, I do remember STALKER being super buggy too. In fact, the core balance of the game seemed utterly broken until modded.

I guess I'm just growing tired of games stretching themselves too thin with their grandiose ambitions. I'll continue to play Fallout 4 because I enjoy roaming the world, but that's really about it.

 

[Thornton Reed]

Fallout 4s main issue wasn't the jank it was its dog shit writing and dated controls.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

The only game that really surpasses Bethesda in terms of AI is STALKER, which is _even buggier_ and needs mods before the A-Life features are actually functional. A-Life tracks all living creatures within the Zone at all times, even when you aren't on the map.

Stalker was also the first game of it's kind of a pretty small Ukrainian studio (remember that GSC pretty much only made strategy games before Stalker. I think they made one shooter and one racing game too?) while Fallout 4 is the 4th game (on the same engine) of one of the biggest developers around. It would be utter madness if Stalker no bugs at all.

I'm not mad that Fallout 4 had bugs. I'm mad the Bethesda has no reason to work on those bugs because apparently nobody cares. Why even invest resources into trying to contain some, if everybody expects them anyway and is totally fine with them?

Yeah, I do remember STALKER being super buggy too. In fact, the core balance of the game seemed utterly broken until modded.

I guess I'm just growing tired of games stretching themselves too thin with their grandiose ambitions. I'll continue to play Fallout 4 because I enjoy roaming the world, but that's really about it.

If you play on PC, install the mod that let's you read what you are about to say instead of that stupid wheel. I can't even count the amount of times my character said something completely unexpected. Not that it matters since it all leads to the same answer anyway but stuff like that makes my blood boil.

 

[Comandr]

It's so weird... I've never experienced any problems with Bethesda games. I don't doubt that others have, but I've never encountered anything like what you describe.

Having put a gargantuan amount of time into Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3, NV, and 4, I can honestly say I have almost never, or at least very rarely encountered these issues.

Sure I recall the odd pathing problem, but nothing that doesn't sort itself out quickly enough. The only thing that really sticks out in my mind in this regard is the ultimate climbing champion: skyrim horse.

 

[joecanada]

Hard to take you serious with this blatant hyperbole, TW3 combat is far better then Elder Scrolls. It's not Dark Souls but TW3 combat is fine. Pointless Side quests? LOL. Playing games is pointless , but TW3 has the best side quests of any open world RPG.

Ok worst combat I've played this gen then. For an excellent rpg the combat is 5/10 tops nothing about it is interesting. And the encounters and side quests do become meaningless as you get little exp or useful items . Encounters? Forget it completely waste of time

 

[Dakhanavar]

That's because the two games are very far apart. I would argue that The Witcher 3 is closer to Red Dead Redemption than Skyrim.

Actually, this strikes me as a much more reasonable comparison. I always thought that despite the similar settings, Witcher 3 and Skyrim were very different games in some fairly fundamental ways.

 

[Tigress]

This doesn't actually mean anything, nor does it answer my question.

Actually I agree with him. Every game they make the RPG aspect gets weaker and weaker. Dialogue has less real options and NPCs respond the same no matter what you choose. Skill checks aren't even used anymore in Fallout (the main game but they did use it in Far Harbor and you have two quests with one skill check in the main game so the engine still can do it). Nothing you do makes any difference (though not sure this has changed... oldest Bethesda game I've played is Fallout 3 and thinking about it I do think it had more choices that mattered than newer games).

I do think they tried to change some in 4 but they totally missed the boat. I mean I like that they actually let you choose factions this time but they tried to do it so that each choice had some bad but instead made it so all choices just sucked.

I mean I don't think they try to make their RPGs like other developers. But I do think even for what they are good at they are weakening at it. But, then I'm one of those that think New Vegas got it right and is >>>> Bethesda's Fallouts or RPGs really (But I'll say I even love Bethesda's games too).

 

[DocSeuss]

Yeah, I do remember STALKER being super buggy too. In fact, the core balance of the game seemed utterly broken until modded.

I guess I'm just growing tired of games stretching themselves too thin with their grandiose ambitions. I'll continue to play Fallout 4 because I enjoy roaming the world, but that's really about it.

I love janky games that try hard more than polished games that don't. But I'm me.

Stalker was also the first game of it's kind of a pretty small Ukrainian studio (remember that GSC pretty much only made strategy games before Stalker. I think they made one shooter and one racing game too?) while Fallout 4 is the 4th game (on the same engine) of one of the biggest developers around. It would be utter madness if Stalker no bugs at all. I'm not mad that Fallout 4 had bugs. I'm mad the Bethesda has no reason to work on those bugs because apparently nobody cares.

X-Ray engine, yeah.

You're wrong about Bethesda. Fallout 4 is the second game on that engine (the first being Skyrim; people will tell you it's the exact same engine as Oblivion/Morrowind/Fallout 3, but they're wrong, though it was BUILT to mimic a lot of elements for familiarity's sake, like how Source 2 does a lot of stuff Source does, but isn't Source). Bethesda is also quite small compared to most other developers. Their success makes them seem large, but they're quite small.

What you don't seem to understand is that they do work on those bugs. The issue is just that the games are obscenely complex. See post #358 on this page.

Contrast this with a game like, say, Dragon Age: Inquisition. Nobody's wearing clothes as discreet units. Nobody has a home. You can't move any object in the game world unless it was scripted to move. It's considerably less buggy. It is still incredibly buggy, compared to a game like, say, Wolfenstein or Doom (tight, linear, small).

And it's still really buggy. The animations are just as bad as a Bethesda game's. None of the freedom (AI acting reasonably outside of a set path) of a Bethesda game is present in Inquisition, and it was built with a staff that's like 5 times the size of a Bethesda team.

 

[Tigress]

To understand why people enjoy bethesda games, you need to stop thinking of them as RPGs. That's not the main reason people play them. People play them because they are simulation games. And as a simulated system, bethesda's games are technically unparalleled in scope and scale. You can hate on their writing, animations, graphics, etc all day long, you're not actually being critical of anything that matters that much to the people who love those games. You're arguing against parts of the experience that are window dressing around the experience for most people. While they're both considered "RPGs", something like Witcher 3 is really in a different genre altogether.

I think you hit it on the head. Though I think for me simulation is RPG (after all, roleplaying is part of the word of the genre). But yes, I like their games cause they are good simulations really and no other company seems to do that well. I don't agree that some of that stuff you listed doesn't matter. But I do think no on else does a game like theirs that lets you simulate/roleplay so we'll enjoy them even with the warts. I mean the best we got was Obsidian's game using their engine (which honestly is my favoirte game of all time cause it takes everything I like about Bethesda's games and fixes everything other than jankiness that I think Bethesda does wrong).

 

[TeddyShardik]

First one thing about bugs is. Unless they happen every single time to everyone they...won't. Which means some folks don't run into nearly as many bugs as others. This also depends on game-play. As a past tester and QA I can tell you that is one of the hardest things to figure out and clean.

All that being said. Those games we are talking about are massive constructions and for many that means more chances of issue simply due to size and thus they offer a bit more leeway. We could argue if that's fair or not for sure. But for some its understandable.

Their "massive construction" is like a huge shantytown where parts of it will just fall over at random. I agree that shit like that is the worst for qa since often times these bugs aren't even really repoducable but that doesn't excuse the construction ro be so flimsy.

 

[onemanasylum]

Ok worst combat I've played this gen then. For an excellent rpg the combat is 5/10 tops nothing about it is interesting. And the encounters and side quests do become meaningless as you get little exp or useful items . Encounters? Forget it completely waste of time

Come on, not even close, and it's not like bethesda games have good combat, in fact some of the worst in their genre. Side quests are not meaningless..at all.

 

[riotous]

I'm the rare bloke who actually really likes combat in both Elder Scrolls and Fallout games. Elder Scrolls in particular since I love the combination of bow and arrow and magic.

Fallout's system is cool too with the sort of turn-based action point approach.

I JUST started playing Witcher 3 a couple of weeks back but honestly might not play much more because I didn't like the combat mechanics at all. Just not much of a melee game player in general and that seems to be the focus.

 

[Euphor!a]

I totally disagree. The enemies are far more varied and interesting in the STALKER games than anything in the Fall Out games from a gameplay standpoint. Some of the labs were like playing survival horror games with the types of creative enemies you had to overcome and how the more bestial and animal enemies acted and reacted to you and other NPC's in the over world was incredible to behold.

I wish the Fallout games under Bethesda had a fraction of the freedom and creativity of the STALKER games.

It has been awhile but I don't remember any character customization or real progression in STALKER games.

The exploring was not nearly as satisfying as there was kind of nothing to find. Like great, all that and I find a can of food and some magazines for my assault rifle.

The whole game is just oppressive, which is fine, but it kills potential variety in tone.

You can't do nearly the amount of crazy things that you can in the TES and Fallout games.

Like STALKER is obviously plays better and is a better shooter, but that isn't why people are coming the TES and Fallout games.

 

[Hahs]

Having put a gargantuan amount of time into Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3, NV, and 4, I can honestly say I have almost never, or at least very rarely encountered these issues.

Sure I recall the odd pathing problem, but nothing that doesn't sort itself out quickly enough. The only thing that really sticks out in my mind in this regard is the ultimate climbing champion: skyrim horse.

..ha-ha! Hell yeah, like an ATV you can climb damn near anything with a Skyrim horse

 

[Magwik]

"No other game has useless junk sitting around in their world so they don't need to make a half decent game"
Is a pretty shitty excuse.

 

[onemanasylum]

"No other game has useless junk sitting around in their world so they don't need to make a half decent game"
Is a pretty shitty excuse.

It is and I never understood it, I bet my lifes savings the vast majority of the 20 million who bought skyrim don't even know this or give a shit. It's a poor use of resources. Put those resources into something more important like animations, gameplay, combat, etc..

 

[Dick Justice]

Keep telling yourself that.

I don't even need to tell you to, because you will. It's literally the ONLY reason you and others still say this ridiculous shit despite Fallout 4 being the single most trashed game on GAF this generation besides No Man's Sky.

It's transparent. Every time someone defends Fallout once in a thread, or says "oh well I like it anyway", you or someone else drop this little nugget of shit on the thread, painting with as broad a brush as you can muster, all the while expecting nobody to tell you how that shit fuckin' stinks.

One of the first posts in this very thread dismisses the criticism by essentially saying that it doesn't happen to them.

 

[AWizardDidIt]

That's because the two games are very far apart. I would argue that The Witcher 3 is closer to Red Dead Redemption than Skyrim.

100% this. When every game is incorporating RPG mechanics, the term "RPG" has stopped becoming useful as a descriptor for games.

Witcher is a narrative-focused third person action game

Skyrim/Fallout is a fantasy/sci-fi world-simulation with RPG elements

 

[Tigress]

Come on, not even close, and it's not like bethesda games have good combat, in fact some of the worst in their genre. Side quests are not meaningless..at all.

I found witcher's combat for regular monsters boring and you just have to mash buttons. Compared to Elder Scrolls... well melee I'd say about equal. Shooting: Elder Scrolls is better but that is only cause WItcher still didn't really want you to focus on shooting as that is not who Geralt is.

But... W3's boss fights were hella fun (and hard and frustrating until you figured out how you were supposed to attack them). Where as Elder Scrolls/Bethesda combat makes bosses harder by just making them more "bullet" sponges so to speak. I mean that's a little exageration but not far from the mark. I will admit Bethesda's approach allows for more creativity in how you handle it (where as witcher bosses there really was a right strategy that you were supposed to figure out).

Really, the RPG to hold up as the combat we should want RPGs to have is Dragon's Dogma. That's the one that really has combat that stands out (and not just for boss fights).

(what I'd really love is an RPG with monster hunter type combat . Kinda excited for Horizon for that as it looks like it might have monster hunter like combat).

 

[klabautermann]

Yeah Bethesda games are just completely unplayable for me. Never really got the appeal personally, but tons enjoy them so I guess there's somethin there.

 

[Grisby]

ask Brad Shoemaker

Oh shit. This was my first thought too, lol.

 

[joecanada]

Come on, not even close, and it's not like bethesda games have good combat, in fact some of the worst in their genre. Side quests are not meaningless..at all.

Well theyre meaningless if you happen to be too high level which is why I skipped most . Fallout at least has interesting encounters... Traps , mines , bombs , theft , vats , fps , you choose ...it's not the greatest but at least you can make it interesting. In w3 the enemies dumbly stare until you reach them. But if you walk away too far , climb on an object, go into water , they do absolutely nothing.

 

[onemanasylum]

Well theyre meaningless if you happen to be too high level which is why I skipped most . Fallout at least has interesting encounters... Traps , mines , bombs , theft , vats , fps , you choose ...it's not the greatest but at least you can make it interesting. In w3 the enemies dumbly stare until you reach them. But if you walk away too far , climb on an object, go into water , they do absolutely nothing.

So quests only matter if they gain you levels? LOL, I don't know maybe do quests for the story lore? They are not meaningless, especially in TW3 with so many well written stories. Unless you don't play games for fun.

 

[Euphor!a]

One of the first posts in this very thread dismisses the criticism by essentially saying that it doesn't happen to them.

That isn't dismissing criticism. If they didn't experience something, what do you want them to do, criticize it anyway?

 

[Tigress]

100% this. When every game is incorporating RPG mechanics, the term "RPG" has stopped becoming useful as a descriptor for games.

Witcher is a narrative-focused third person action game

Skyrim/Fallout is a fantasy/sci-fi world-simulation with RPG elements

I always liked the differentiation that RPG is a game that lets you actually roleplay. You know, the type that are based in the original RPG type game (pen and paper) and try to simulate that. With the game being hte dungeon master and trying to be as open as possible to letting the player play who you want. I'll even be open to saying that it can give you a set character but the focus is that you are supposed to play as if you are that character and be given choices to try to roleplay as you think that character would do. So, yeah, most good RPGs are turn based (I think a current game that is a great example that I've played is Wasteland 2). I think Bethesda is more trying to do live action RPG but I think they are moving more away from RPG. And I'd agree with calling them a simulation with RPG elements.

And I could totally agree with Witcher being a third person action game (though I think one could argue it is still an RPG but just as I said, the idea is you are supposed to decide how you think Geralt would handle things as it does give you choices on how he decides to solve a problem). And that RPG is so general a genre now that just cause both are considered as RPGs doesn't mean they are the same game. Hell, there are people that consider Borderlands 2 an RPG (Don't even get me started.. seeing as my definition is right in this post that should tell you what i think of that opinion).

 

[HStallion]

Well theyre meaningless if you happen to be too high level which is why I skipped most . Fallout at least has interesting encounters... Traps , mines , bombs , theft , vats , fps , you choose ...it's not the greatest but at least you can make it interesting. In w3 the enemies dumbly stare until you reach them. But if you walk away too far , climb on an object, go into water , they do absolutely nothing.

These seem like complaints you could easily level at Bethesda RPGs as well.

 

[Count of Monte Sawed-Off]

That's because the two games are very far apart. I would argue that The Witcher 3 is closer to Red Dead Redemption than Skyrim.

Definitely. And for what it's worth, I encountered more bugs that required a reload in the Witcher 3 than I did in FO4.

 

[Wanace]

If anything the longer Bethesda has been using their dated engine, player freedom has decreased.

In fallout 4 especially, you had to be army dad or lawyer mom searching for your son because that's what the story demanded. You didn't spend any time discovering the world or your place in it because your son needed saving. Fallout 3 was a step in this direction with its family oriented story bullshit and you had a dad but at least you could decide who you would become. New Vegas took a step back in the right direction by making you a blank slate.

In fallout 4 you can't even ignore dogmeat because he was a quest necessity. You had a voice, and a history, and a wife or husband. You had 4 dialog "options" which all boiled down to the same thing.

If Bethesda wants to reclaim its title as the open world RPG leader, they need to do more than just pay lip service to radiant AI and freedom of "see those mountains?"

There needs to be a complete overhaul of the systems that they are using to make their worlds. As others have said, player choice and play style needs to be recognized by the world and reacted to in a realistic way. I need to be able to own land or have a pet or get married and have the world recognize my choice. I'd rather they take a step back from production values and rigid storytelling and focus more on how the player interacts with the world.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

For the same reason Grand Theft Auto jank/terrible gunplay/terrible driving is dismissed?