|
Fallout
Jul 7, 2016 16:18:27 GMT -5
Post by Maciej Miszczyk on Jul 7, 2016 16:18:27 GMT -5
I'm playing Fallout 4 at the moment and having a lot of fun and I say that as someone who not only loves the original 2 but replayed them at the start of the year, so they're fresh in my memory. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I find it honestly pretty odd that you cut Fallout 3 some slack but are hard on 4 even though 4 is pretty much better than 3 in every way, the color palette is more colorful (3 was part of that 7th gen trend of monochrome color palettes) the gunplay is more fun and the writing and storyline, while not up to par with New Vegas, is still a lot better than 3. And I'm also pretty sick of this trend of bashing modern games for the sake of bashing modern games, I mean the original Fallout is almost 20 years old, Fallout 4 came out last year, of course they're radically different styles of game, what do you expect? that doesn't make 4 bad. well I had more fun with Fallout 3 than I did with Fallout 4. one of my biggest issues with 4 (aside from the identity crisis) was the abundance of extermination missions. you'd go into some place, kill a billion enemies outside, go inside and follow a linear path to kill two billions more. I found it boring because while gunplay is better than it was in 3/NV, it wasn't good enough for over 40 hours of endless shooting. Fallout 3 had, in comparison, more ways of solving stuff through dialog and skillchecks and less constrained dungeons. and yeah, I know, 4 had a quest with robots on a ship and kid in a fridge. the problem? I never encountered them. I played the game from start to finish and while I wasn't a completionist, I didn't rush the game until I got bored with it (which was sometime after getting a quest from Father ). I did dozens of sidequests and most of them (not just the randomly generated Minutemen quests and not even just the sidequests, even the main quests had a lot of stuff like that) boiled down to going somewhere, killing some people/ghouls/monsters and returning. also, the problem with Fallout 4 isn't that it's modern. it's that it's the wrong kind of modern. Deus Ex: Human Revolution was modern without being dumbed down. Witcher 3 was a modern Bioware-style action-RPG and yet it was much better at giving the player meaningful choices (when it comes to the story, the gameplay was kinda restrictive) than Fallout 4, despite the fact that Fallout series were known for choices. decent dialog with multiple options shouldn't be a thing of the past and neither is the ability to build your character however you want to. if AAA devs wanted to make a high-budget modern game that allows for multiple playstyles, places focus on the consequences of player actions (and not in a half-assed Telltale way) and has a sufficiently deep mechanics then more power to them. if a modern Fallout can't do those things (although, as I mentioned in the article, NV was quite good about it) then it will compare unfavorably to the earlier games because it fails to do what they excelled at. and because they're still supposed to be a part of the series, such comparisons are unavoidable - if they wanted those games to be their own thing, why did they call them 'Fallout'? tl;dr 'modern' isn't bad. the series losing its identity is. If you want a new Fallout-esque RPG, I suggest having a look at the Serbian indie game Underrail (no, not Undertale). It's a nice mix of post-apocalypse, cyberpunk, and a tiny bit of Lovecraftian horror, with systems reminiscent of the original Fallout, but also System Shock/ Deus Ex, and Jagged Alliance 2. It's not without faults of its own, but for the small price of 15 quid, I found it immensely enjoyable. My personal GOTY 2015, next to Bloodborne. I played that one, even reviewed it for NicheGamer. I liked it but IMHO it focused too much on combat and too little on alternate ways of solving missions. also, I think that the whole tunnels system started to feel like padding after a certain point. still, it was a very good game, with probably the best stealth system in a (non-action) RPG reading some of the comments on twitter, I think I might have worded the part about Legion in NV a bit awkwardly. the point wasn't that they 'had some good ideas' because they didn't and it wasn't my intention to imply they did. it was supposed to be more about how they had exactly the kind of bad ideas that would get traction in a lawless wasteland because they're a sort of counterpoint to everyone else there. one of those people who make long game analysis videos of youtube (not sure which one, probably Noah Caldwell-Gervais, MatthewMatosis or MrBtongue) expressed this concept of Legion as 'compellingly evil' better I both agree and disagree with that sentiment. Caeser's policies are inhumane and brutal, but that's exactly the kind of thing that mankind sort of needs when civilization has been reduced to such primitive, basic levels. It's more about survival at that point than freedom. Doesn't make it morally correct, but I can't say it's exactly wrong, either. I'd say it's both wrong and morally incorrect, but it's also appealing given the circumstances. this is what I wanted to express really - that Legion is good at showing why people can support cruel, authoritarian politics and feel justified. I think the kind of government that Caesar brings would be ultimately disastrous but I get why people in the game's world would think along the lines of 'their punishments are cruel but they keep the bandits out and also wolf skins and sunglasses look kinda cool'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Fallout
Jul 7, 2016 16:41:19 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2016 16:41:19 GMT -5
It's more than that. The attempt to recreate democracy as it was before the nuclear war is clearly failing. Too much corruption. Too much division between groups. Is that more just? Is it more fair? The people that sort of government is sworn to protect are even more vulnerable than those within the Legion's borders.
Democracy can really only work when you aren't in constant threat of being killed every moment of every day. The wasteland is very far off from that goal.
|
|
|
Fallout
Jul 7, 2016 16:50:48 GMT -5
Post by Maciej Miszczyk on Jul 7, 2016 16:50:48 GMT -5
NCR are the kind of people that should be able to tame the wasteland but aren't. Legion is able to do that but they shouldn't be. in the end, I rejected both (as well as that machiavellian asshole House) and decided to embrace the wasteland's anarchy. long live the independent Vegas and the individualistic empire of Miszczykia!
|
|
|
Fallout
Jul 7, 2016 18:07:28 GMT -5
Post by GamerL on Jul 7, 2016 18:07:28 GMT -5
This is not to say 4 bereft of criticisms, but it really irritates me how so many people look at the glass half empty when it comes to modern games, I don't see how someone could not have at least some fun with Fallout 4. I love a lot of modern games, but I still feel Wasteland 2 is more of a Fallout game than 3 and 4. I also played Wasteland 2 earlier this year and while it's a solid game, I'm honestly having more pure fun with Fallout 4 than Wasteland 2 even though Wasteland 2 is a game made in a more complex, "old school" style closer to the original Fallouts (though the irony being it's not nearly as good as the actual classic Fallouts) I think "is it fun?" is an underrated question to ask when judging a game, some people go on so much about complexity, innovation, challenge but I feel like the simple of question of "is it fun to play?" is what matters most, or at least that's my main criteria for judging a game, while obviously tastes are different and "what's fun" varies from person to person, which is fair. I've always thought very differently about Fallout 3 and so on, that they are more proper sequels than people give them credit for. Only thing I never liked was amping up the 50's feeling which I honestly didn't even realize it was supposed to be like than with the old games. Playing up the 50's retro futurism angle more is actually I think one of the best things Bethesda has done with the series, not sure why you wouldn't like since it the 50's flavor is one of the most crucial things that make Fallout Fallout (it's certainly present even in the classic games even if it's not as pronounced) Anyway, regardless of what you think of Fallout 4 I think we call agree that it would be wonderful if Obsidian is allowed to make another Fallout with 4's engine, right? A game with the graphics quality of 4 and the writing quality of New Vegas would be something really special.
|
|
|
Fallout
Jul 7, 2016 23:27:33 GMT -5
Post by Maciej Miszczyk on Jul 7, 2016 23:27:33 GMT -5
yes, I hope we get to play a new Fallout by Obsidian (although they'd definitely need to redo the dialog system and SPECIAL to make it work). we'll probably need to wait a while for that because Bethesda is still releasing DLCs/expansions. I just hope it does happen despite NV's buggy launch and the fact that they missed the metacritic bonus (which was a stupid idea in the first place).
|
|
|
Fallout
Jul 7, 2016 23:44:52 GMT -5
Post by GamerL on Jul 7, 2016 23:44:52 GMT -5
At the very least it'd be great if they made a "New Vegas remastered" remake of the game with 4's engine, since that old engine is looking very dated now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Fallout
Jul 7, 2016 23:57:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2016 23:57:02 GMT -5
I can't decide whether I love or hate New Vegas.
On the one hand...:
-It's definitely more lore-friendly than FO3 was. -Considering the deadlines and antique engine Obsidian had to work with, it was a pretty good job. -Your story choices actually *mattered*, unlike say in Mass Effect 3. -Great arsenal and options for inventive pacifist players too. -Very flavorful NPCs of all stripes and persuasions and an interesting environment. -ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING about the Old World Blues DLC. -Lonesome Road was metal as fuck. -Boone is my homeboy. And Veronica and Cass are my homegirls. Hell, ALL the companions are awesome.
On the other hand...: -It's rather obvious the game is mashed up from what they could salvage from Van Buren and other material. -I can't decide whether I like or loathe Ulysses. -I can't decide whether the ambiguous positivity of any of the endings is genius or just Chris Avellone being pretentious. I would have written the Independent ending much differently---forming a unified federation out of the Mojave native factions instead of the weird pseudo-anarcho-libertarian everyone-does-whatever ending we got. On the other hand, the Courier being an ineffective leader actually makes some sense given the backstory of Lonesome Road. As for the other factions, Legion is barely better than the Fiends and far more pretentious (not to mention hypocritical and quite willing to resort to dirty tactics despite what they claim), House is humanity before humans, the NCR is just a retreaded cross-examination of the shortcomings of democracy, fuck this noise, I'm just here to dick around in the desert and not hold philosophical debate bullshit. It's both fascinating and distracting and given that Ulysses is probably supposed to be Avellone's mouthpiece it's one of the reasons I'm mixed on his character.
|
|
|
Post by bladededge on Jul 8, 2016 0:08:09 GMT -5
One not untrue but not quite accurate statement I'd like to nitpick at for correction. In the Fallout 4 segment, the article mentions issues with random quest generation, specifically "probably the worst new addition to the game are 'radiant quests': randomly generated missions created with Radiant AI (the system responsible for NPC scheduling in Gamebryo-based games)". Radiant AI is a technology developed by and owned by Bethesda specifically, not an inherent feature of the Gamebryo engine as the line suggests. Indeed, it's possible to argue that the version of Gamebryo used in Oblivion, Fallout 3 and New Vegas is so far removed from the original software that it isn't Gamebryo anymore, in the Ship of Theseus sense. It's certainly the case that the engine used for Skyrim and Fallout 4 (The Creation Engine) is to Gamebryo in the same way that id Tech 5 is to Quake III - clearly descended from it, but a new entity by virtue of enough code being swapped out. A friend of mine some time ago did a bit of research into this matter which may be interesting reading for anybody who cares about the vagarities of game engine descent. (https://www.reddit.com/r/ElderScrolls/comments/4os0fj/clearing_misconceptions_on_netimmerse_gamebryo/)
This is, again, a minor aside in what is otherwise quite a well-written article.
I've played every game in the Fallout series except for the PS2 action-RPG and Fallout 4, and I have to say that Fallout 3 is probably my favorite of the lot. The general disconnectedness of different sections of the game world (everyone seems to be living in perfect isolation despite being five minutes from each other) and issues regarding timelines (The game's setting makes much more sense being set fifty years after the bombs fell, rather than the canon two centuries) are what TV Tropes calls fridge logic to me. It occurs after the fact. What happens while you're playing is that you're thrown into a vast, bizarre world with no real preconceptions of what you're going to run into and only a vague goal, and proceed to run into weeks worth of fantastic setpieces, well-written stories, fascinating characters and just enough randomly generated weirdness to keep you wanting to walk instead of fast-travel. I appreciate particularly the personal touch of the game's main storyline - you aren't out to save the world, you're out to find your father and figure out what he's been keeping secret from you for your entire life. The plot is full of very human touches, helped along by a very skilled supporting actor which actually put in the effort his role required. Liam Neeson wasn't phoning it in for a paycheck, not at all like certain previous celebrity cameos Bethesda's put in their games which I could mention.
I recognize that New Vegas is very much a better role-playing game than F3, but the general emptiness of the world outside the locations Obsidian actually got the chance to finish feel very sparse, and even with unofficial patches the bugs are immersion-breaking. The world of New Vegas feels very small, and you can sense the holes where the developers obviously had plans to put something but couldn't get around to it. It just never struck me the way wandering the capital wasteland did.
"...the No Mutants Allowed website, although nowadays it's mostly known for their intense dislike for Bethesda's games.". Somebody's a fan of dry wit.
|
|
|
Post by GamerL on Jul 8, 2016 2:21:42 GMT -5
New Vegas is definitely a little overrated, the world design is just not as good as Bethesda's stuff and it does overall have just a bit of a slapped together feel (which would explain all the bugs)
And man, those fucking graphics, it's been years since I played 3 and NV so looking at those screens is the first I've seen of the games in a while and they have aged far worse than I expected, I mean damn, it's gonna be hard to replay New Vegas and I'll probably just write 3 off as a loss altogether.
Anyway hopefully Obsidian will be given another chance and hopefully they'll be given more time, I read a recent interview with Todd Howard where he seemed to imply that Elder Scrolls 6 is still years away, so who knows when Bethesda might get back to Fallout, in that case there's no rush and Obsidian will have plenty of time.
|
|
|
Post by magic89 on Jul 8, 2016 7:21:43 GMT -5
Fallout 1 is great game but never played too much because time limit, i know can be extanded but still you cant travel too long. Instead ive spend a lot times at Fallout 2 While my bro stuck in Den, ive been porn star in New Reno and later move to San Francisco where ive pickpocket Gauss Rifle from one guy on Tanker When shoved devasting power of that gun to my brother he was ask many times where i get it and ive told him to Join Vault City and anger First Citizen hehe poor fool. Somehow ive enjoyed Fallout Tactics becuse i loved hired Vault Boy charahcter found it in one Random Encounter. Fallout 3 when saw trailers seems look fine, but later little disappointment because its like TES IV Oblvion but with guns, GOAT system are OK but sometimes stupid,Like this ive used small caliber gun who in GOAT got chance to rips someone limbs without any problem. But best part is Blow up Megatona muhahaha! Fallout: New Vegas played only once at my friend home, Not bad its very close to Fallout 2, but shame still travling on foot. Fallout 4 Not played yet, but i got bad feeling about this, its similar plot to Fallout 3, instead finding father( Oh wait never mind you must find your missing son. Console Fallout i give pass but gonna played only if somebody provide me Wind Brahmin.
|
|
|
Post by elektrolurch on Jul 8, 2016 8:05:36 GMT -5
I think "is it fun?" is an underrated question to ask when judging a game, some people go on so much about complexity, innovation, challenge but I feel like the simple of question of "is it fun to play?" is what matters most, or at least that's my main criteria for judging a game, while obviously tastes are different and "what's fun" varies from person to person, which is fair. Again, highly subjective. From my perspective, "Is it fun?" is a wrong question for any medium in general. For instance, I wouldn't really call Papers, Please! "fun to play",but it is a brilliant, engaging and thought provoking experience. Think of books, of movies, any media. It's not always about "fun". The best works in any media for me are not about "is it fun". Hell, I even would say the original Fallout isn not really "fun". It's brilliant, thought provoking, deep, funny at times,depressing, engaging, emotional- but "fun"...?
|
|
|
Post by dsparil on Jul 8, 2016 9:44:24 GMT -5
The combat in Fallout 1 is very fun. It's completely possible to finish focusing exclusively on unarmed combat or melee weapons. The one weak point is that if you focus on small guns, you're basically supposed to take Tag! and refocus on energy weapons. It actually comes off as a much goofier game if you dial up the violence level or take Bloody Mess as a trait. There's enough humor already and the over the top violence ends up making some of the serious elements come off more like black humor.
|
|
|
Fallout
Jul 8, 2016 10:42:09 GMT -5
Post by cambertian on Jul 8, 2016 10:42:09 GMT -5
Think of books, of movies, any media. It's not always about "fun". The best works in any media for me are not about "is it fun". I'd say if it piques your interest, it's "fun" to you. Art always involves engagement in my book.
|
|
|
Fallout
Jul 8, 2016 11:18:59 GMT -5
Post by 🧀Son of Suzy Creamcheese🧀 on Jul 8, 2016 11:18:59 GMT -5
Again, highly subjective. From my perspective, "Is it fun?" is a wrong question for any medium in general. For instance, I wouldn't really call Papers, Please! "fun to play",but it is a brilliant, engaging and thought provoking experience. Think of books, of movies, any media. It's not always about "fun". The best works in any media for me are not about "is it fun". Hell, I even would say the original Fallout isn not really "fun". It's brilliant, thought provoking, deep, funny at times,depressing, engaging, emotional- but "fun"...? In the case of questions like this, "engaging" "enjoyable" and "it kept my attention" = "fun". Fun is kind of a vague word anyway.
|
|
|
Fallout
Jul 8, 2016 11:34:59 GMT -5
Post by drpepperfan on Jul 8, 2016 11:34:59 GMT -5
Also worth pointing out that video games are not "books, movies" etc, and thus can't really be compared with the same criteria. While a video game CAN be thought provoking or engaging, it's not the main goal. I sure wasn't provoked into deep insight by Super Mario World or Street Fighter 4, but that doesn't make them any less fantastic.
And yes, Fallout 1/2 can absolutely be considered "fun".
|
|