Fallout 4 Pre-Announcement Bullshit Thread [GO TO NEW THREAD]

Zboj Lamignat really picked an appropriate avatar.

 

Complete fucking nonsense. A entirely new mechanic that changed the nature of combat from FO3 is not "just a flavor" Jesus H. Christ what a dumb fucking statement.

FONV is not the best game ever made, and it isn't even my favorite. Sorry, favourite. But it is light years ahead of FO3 in every conceivable measure, except for the limitations imposed by the engine.

 

Again, this is exactly what I said before. If you don't like the Bethesda formula you won't like NV. That doesn't mean it isn't vastly improved over Fallout 3 in almost every way.

 

Nature of combat is absolutely not "completely changed" from F3 ffs, stop writing utter bullshit people, what's the fucking matter with you?

 

I don't know, I don't feel that New Vegas contains the bethesda formula as much. The main element of the game is not exploration. You can see that Bethesda fans complained about this too. New Vegas doesn't have the same philosophy of everything being untouched since the war and every nook and cranny containing some useless tidbit. Sure it's there, but way, way less. It's more obligatory dungeons and enemy locations and such just because it's a sequal to a beth game. Just enough so that it wasn't completely absent.

 

Summoning Roguey

 

Actually, I hate both Oblivion and Fallout 3 and found New Vegas enjoyable.

Though I am angry probably 30% of the time playing it because it has to use the stupid Bethesda formula.

Bring abstracted travel back to Fallout!

 

Agreed. Useless travel is the bane of my playtime, it's such a chore that it's always in those moments where I stop playing, whereas the quicker and more mechanics based Fallout 1&2 travel does not have the same effect. It also means the focus is on important locations, and not entire terrain spaces.

Although It is more difficult to do if you have to stick with 1st/3rd person. And if the game is good, it's good even with the constant walking. As it is with New Vegas and Morrowind, too.

 

Well, in Fallout 3 everything is just shit. I won't waste my time and go into detail, Fallout 3 is just a boring piece of shit game, you have to have extremely low standards to enjoy shit like that.

The narrative, writing quality and reactivity in New Vegas are great though. The mechanics are also vastly superior in NV, but are sadly still pretty broken. This isn't Obsidian's fault though, they were forced to use the shitty Fallout 3 framework and did the best they could with that crap.

New Vegas has many weaknesses, but it also many strengths, and overall it is great game. I still consider it to be overrated on the Codex because of the underdeveloped and partially broken mechanics. But the Codexers are known to really love their flawed gems.

Just my 2¢

 

This is true.

The vastly improved writing and narrative structuring, and the assortment of mechanical tweaks only carry the game so far when the core gameplay (improved or not) feels more or less the same. The model on top of which they started slamming their improvements was so full of shit that it is amazing they managed to make New Vegas even as good/tolerable (relatively, which ever angle one views it from) as it is.

I don't believe Fallout 3 would be any better if it had identical mechanics with NV. A bit less frustrating, perhaps, but not much; there's not that of change in how the mechanics play out in practice.

 

• Perception is the dump stat for sure, I don't know why they opted to keep it that way, but Charisma, Endurance, Agility and strength play differently. Charisma can improve companion damage and armor by up to 50%, agility greatly affects combat through reload and drawing speed, strength affects your ability to use large weapons, endurance is more useful since health per level is halved, as well it affects implants.
  
• No you don't, even if you meta game you can't max every skill, and even trying to limits your perks and stats. Broken with DLC, but fixed with Jsawyer.esp. And again, 15 perks, out of 100+, there are also perk specific checks.
• No it isn't, the change is substantial, DR in vats went down by like 70%, crit chance changed from 15 to 5, and enemies aren't as slow. I rarely use VATS.
  
• And like in Fallout 1 and 2 as well , Yeah, max level characters are strawng, like in most RPGs. But don't bullshit me and say anything, even at max level there are still challenges, Deadwind cavern comes to mind.

 

Yes it is. On the hardest FO3 difficulty you could literally just stand there and hit the ~~moose butan!~~ to kill an enemy. There was no tactical difference in the way you used different ranged weapons, and neither was there any real reason to pick certain weapons over other weapons except for looking at their raw damage scores. All of this changed for FONV. They nerfed VATS, added different ammo types, made "Repair" a viable skill instead of just a money sink, and implemented actual weapon differences that gave you reasons to pick certain guns over others to fit your character, or to just let you LARP if that is your thing.

Again, FONV is not my favorite game in the whole world. But claiming it is just a difference of flavor from FO3 is boring try-hard bullshit.

 

Scale is also a factor,
129 perks, even with the shit shoveled out
241 weapons, most with unique assets, as well as being well balanced, and mods for many of them to boot.
184 locations
ETC ETC

It's the only game of it's kind IMO, an actual CRPG with the scale and production values of a AAA title. Fingers crossed that it gets a real sequel.

 

Yeah, in FNV I just hit backpedal and shoot for meele enemies and strafe plus shoot for the ranged ones, the tactical options killed me. Exactly like in F3. So I guess we simply live in alternate realities.

People should really start getting permabanned for using this "but it was the same in a game made over a decade ago!" "argument". Unless of course it's used against the newer game, when it actually works.

 

That wasn't the content of the argument dumbfuck, people should get permabanned for picking out the most inconsequential parts of a post to reply to.

You can't say why it's bad, it's natural character progression, and yes I'm a fan of Fallout 1 and 2, and yes I like having a powerful endgame character. I've actually had arguments with fans who would prefer you rollover end game even more, things like being indestructible in power armor for instance. A possibility in Fallout 1/2, but in NV a legendary deathclaw still kills you in 2 hits.

The time it was made in isn't relevant, it's a sequel to the fucking game. tl;dr, not only are you wrong about how powerful your endgame character is, but even if you weren't it still wouldn't be a big negative for me.

It's an FPS game, not a strategy game, and even then that's bullshit, there are different tactics, sniping, cover, grenades, and a lot of the strategy is in the weapons and ammo you use.

 

Really? You don't seem to grasp the content of my argument (of which you picked only some parts) particularly well. It was saying that you get to be good at everything way too quick, not in endgame. Which is a fact. And FNV doesn't differ from F3 in any significant way in that aspect.

Ok, this getting a tad too embarrassing for me, I rest my case.

 

I can't really parse this sentence, but that's okay. I'm pretty sure that even if it made sense it would still be completely dumb.

 

Bethesda fans expect to be gods at the end of the game. In fairness to them that is Bethesda's style, and the Bethesda logo is on the New Vegas box. Thanfully Obsidian aren't into deifying.

 

I disagree, in Fallout: New Vegas you aren't able to kill everything with every kind of weapon.
Fallout 3 isn't a gud RPG even talking about its combat skills system.

 

I haven't played FO3 and don't really want to (a couple of Let's Plays were enough), but I think New Vegas on its own was excellent despite all of its obvious flaws.

There were lots of things I didn't really like about the game. S.P.E.C.I.A.L. affected things way too little and the implementation of certain skills could've been better. While the writing was overall pretty good, the game world felt still a bit too inconsistent at times and had things that kind of rubbed me the wrong way or felt somewhat out-of-place (like space rocket ghouls, Boomers, a couple of companions, certain things about the Legion and perhaps even the city of New Vegas itself). Combat pretty much sucked and the game of course looked like shit. Gamebryo, Gamebryo never changes.

Still, the good stuff in it was really fucking good. There were probably about a million quests and almost all of them had multiple solutions, some pretty straightforward (your typical "speech check or violence" side quests) and some very ambitious (like the casino quests). The general scope of the game was very impressive, and exploration-wise it was great with tons of interesting yet completely optional locations all over the map (Vaults, abandoned factories, NCR outposts...) The non-combat skills were more useful than in any other cRPG that I can think of and going full diplomat was actually a viable choice, at least for the main quest (and I don't think you should be able to talk yourself out of every single situation anyway). Although you would eventually become a Jack of All Trades with the DLC, in the base game you could create very different builds that could still be effective. The faction system and the structure of the game were superb and allowed you to have completely different playthroughs. You could also kill anyone, which is always a huge plus in my books. I think the game really nailed the good things about a sandbox approach, like player freedom, but it kind of worked the best when you didn't try to do every single thing in the game (like in your typical Bethesda game) but instead chose a path, stuck with it and finished the game before even getting near the level cap. Even when going full completionist it offered enough choice for at least two or three very different playthroughs.

To me it doesn't seem that FO3 had any of these good things. Very little player choice when it comes to the quests, completely braindead world design, practically no real use for non-combat skills, non-killable characters everywhere blocking your path and railroading you to a specific path, 100% linear main quest where you're looking for a middle-aged guy... Then there was of course the writing and the horrible things they did to the Fallout lore, but I don't even want to go there. Of course, if you can't (or don't want to) see past the engine, the games will probably seem very similar.

 

New Vegas is one of the best games released over the past 5 years, maybe even the past decade. Anyone who dismisses it as "more Bethestard crap" or "hiking simulator with dialogue" is truly missing out. Of course, it just won't click with some people and that's fine, but I get the impression that a lot of the people bashing it either didn't play it, played for 10 mins or played it but pre-emptively decided they were going to hate it.

 

LOL, that's cute, no, it's not a fact at all, you don't get to be good at everything, if you can't even max out all of the skills at max level, how the hell are you good at everything early game? I picked the parts of your comment that mattered, not whatever I could make a shitty one liner out of. You can't be good at everything, that's a fact, you have a very limited number of perks, that's a fact. your traits differentiate your characters, fact. SPECIAL stats are more significant, and finally checks in game are based off of SPECIAL stats, perks, and skills, and unless you approach it from a meta game perspective it isn't a "You can do and be good at everything" kind of game.

There are plenty of things in this game that pose a threat to an endgame character, and there is plenty of content that you won't experience and lots of things you won't be good at.

Good to hear, I don't think anyone was looking forward to contradicting more of your vague critique. I'm glad you ended your argument with the same kind of depth and quality that you came in with.

 

I understand that people who don't play many RPGs could see New Vegas as pretty much the same that Fallout 3. In fact, this statement is not unusual. But seeing it here, in the friggin Codex, where every single detail refering to gameplay mechanics are debated to the extreme, is something I won't understand.

 

The game, even in the ultimate edition with all patches, 4gb enabler, unofficial patch still crashes very often like a motherfucker. Claiming that this abomination of code is "stable" is a downright lie.

 

Bethesda Gamebryo in general is not stable; only with Skyrim were they able to mostly fix the engine's CTD problem.