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

[markec]

Bethesda also can't code climbable ladders. Do you really, really think the engine is the limiting factor?

They can, it's just a question of priorities and resource management. Spending time on making sure AI plays nice with ladders is time that can be spent elsewhere so they figure they can leave it by the wayside. No enemies in Divinity 2 can climb ladders. Your pet just immediately teleports up. Alpha Protocol is an example of a mismanaged game where all the awful erratic ladder behavior was left in.

See when you say cheap potshot things like this it leads me to believe you're a charlatan.

I hate Bethesda, not because they create bad games or rape my favorite franchises (well partly for that too), but they are the only AAA RPG developer who have no money or time restrictions on developing their games. Yet they are completely satisfied creating shitty games because they know no matter how bad they are their fans will buy and praise them and reviewers will give them perfect scores. Imagine what could have Troika or Obsidian accomplish with those kind or resources, I bet one of those things would be ability to climb ladders.

 

[karfhud]

Bethesda also can't code climbable ladders. Do you really, really think the engine is the limiting factor?

They can, it's just a question of priorities and resource management. Spending time on making sure AI plays nice with ladders is time that can be spent elsewhere so they figure they can leave it by the wayside. No enemies in Divinity 2 can climb ladders. Your pet just immediately teleports up. Alpha Protocol is an example of a mismanaged game where all the awful erratic ladder behavior was left in.

See when you say cheap potshot things like this it leads me to believe you're a charlatan.

I hate Bethesda, not because they create bad games or rape my favorite franchises (well partly for that too), but they are the only AAA RPG developer who have no money or time restrictions on developing their games. Yet they are completely satisfied creating shitty games because they know no matter how bad they are their fans will buy and praise them and reviewers will give them perfect scores. Imagine what could have Troika or Obsidian accomplish with those kind or resources, I bet one of those things would be ability to climb ladders.

Problem is that they have this humongous budget precisely because they've turned towards the more easily accessible, streamlined RPGs, which can cater to a larger, console-state-of-mind-infected audience, not the other way around.

 

[Infinitron]

I've said this before, but the problem with Bethesda is that they have no competition. All of the other AAAs completely ignored the massive-scale open world RPG genre for years, preferring to create MMORPGs or linear cinematic popamole RPGs instead.

Why improve your game if you have no credible competitors?

 

[Kirtai]

Why improve your game if you have no credible competitors?

Not to mention being able to rely on the huge array of modders from whom they can steal ideas for the next game who'll fix their games for them.

 

[Koschey]

Why improve your game if you have no credible competitors?

Integrity? Oh, wait, we're talking [AAA dev or publisher].

 

[Scruffy]

I've said this before, but the problem with Bethesda is that they have no competition. All of the other AAAs completely ignored the massive-scale open world RPG genre for years, preferring to create MMORPGs or linear cinematic popamole RPGs instead.

Why improve your game if you have no credible competitors?

so you're saying that Witcher3 going all obliviony/skyrimy might improve future Derpthesda games?
one can only hope, but for some reason i am very skeptical of this... i feel that the retarded fanboy theory makes more sense

 

[markec]

Bethesda also can't code climbable ladders. Do you really, really think the engine is the limiting factor?

They can, it's just a question of priorities and resource management. Spending time on making sure AI plays nice with ladders is time that can be spent elsewhere so they figure they can leave it by the wayside. No enemies in Divinity 2 can climb ladders. Your pet just immediately teleports up. Alpha Protocol is an example of a mismanaged game where all the awful erratic ladder behavior was left in.

See when you say cheap potshot things like this it leads me to believe you're a charlatan.

I hate Bethesda, not because they create bad games or rape my favorite franchises (well partly for that too), but they are the only AAA RPG developer who have no money or time restrictions on developing their games. Yet they are completely satisfied creating shitty games because they know no matter how bad they are their fans will buy and praise them and reviewers will give them perfect scores. Imagine what could have Troika or Obsidian accomplish with those kind or resources, I bet one of those things would be ability to climb ladders.

Problem is that they have this humongous budget precisely because they've turned towards the more easily accessible, streamlined RPGs, which can cater to a larger, console-state-of-mind-infected audience, not the other way around.

Yet New Vegas was a smashing hit that even many of F3 fans preferred, and it was more complex and consistent game then F3 done in far smaller budget and time frame. New Bethesda games did gain popularity by having shiny graphics, being accessible and offering players sandbox gameplay, but that doesnt mean Oblivion, F3 or Skyrim would have been less accepted if they had better writing, more consistent world, better balanced gameplay etc. The thing is that Bethesda either cant (because they are incompetent) or wont (because they dont care) create detailed and complex worlds since they have the money and time to make them.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

They prioritize world-building over RPG elements.

 

[karfhud]

Bethesda also can't code climbable ladders. Do you really, really think the engine is the limiting factor?

They can, it's just a question of priorities and resource management. Spending time on making sure AI plays nice with ladders is time that can be spent elsewhere so they figure they can leave it by the wayside. No enemies in Divinity 2 can climb ladders. Your pet just immediately teleports up. Alpha Protocol is an example of a mismanaged game where all the awful erratic ladder behavior was left in.

See when you say cheap potshot things like this it leads me to believe you're a charlatan.

I hate Bethesda, not because they create bad games or rape my favorite franchises (well partly for that too), but they are the only AAA RPG developer who have no money or time restrictions on developing their games. Yet they are completely satisfied creating shitty games because they know no matter how bad they are their fans will buy and praise them and reviewers will give them perfect scores. Imagine what could have Troika or Obsidian accomplish with those kind or resources, I bet one of those things would be ability to climb ladders.

Problem is that they have this humongous budget precisely because they've turned towards the more easily accessible, streamlined RPGs, which can cater to a larger, console-state-of-mind-infected audience, not the other way around.

Yet New Vegas was a smashing hit that even many of F3 fans preferred, and it was more complex and consistent game then F3 done in far smaller budget and time frame. New Bethesda games did gain popularity by having shiny graphics, being accessible and offering players sandbox gameplay, but that doesnt mean Oblivion, F3 or Skyrim would have been less accepted if they had better writing, more consistent world, better balanced gameplay etc. The thing is that Bethesda either cant (because they are incompetent) or wont (because they dont care) create detailed and complex worlds since they have the money and time to make them.

Well, truth is, compared to F:NV, F3 is still more successful in terms of sales, as much as it saddens me. That's also a quirky case, as New Vegas used a lot of assets from F3. Basically, most of Obsidian's budget could go into other elements, like voice acting (which is a relief, since engine + assets cost a huge chunk of game's budget). There's also another factor to consider here - F:NV was also an exploration game. So the same kiddos that enjoyed F3 gave New Vegas a similar spin, enjoyed exploration, but did they actually delve into the numerous sidequests? They certainly didn't have to; unfortunately, it's not something that can be assessed properly and proved.

Now take PS:T as an example. Can you enjoy the game if you don't appreciate all the writing? Doubtful.

 

[sea]

In my experience, most modern Bethesda fans really do not have a clue about good vs. bad quest design, complexity of interaction, choice & consequence, etc. I think most of Obsidian's positive changes were lost on that audience, much more so than "a bigger nuke launcher!!!!" would be.

 

[karfhud]

In my experience, most modern Bethesda fans really do not have a clue about good vs. bad quest design, complexity of interaction, choice & consequence, etc. I think most of Obsidian's positive changes were lost on that audience, much more so than "a bigger nuke launcher!!!!" would be.

That was part of my point, yeah.

 

[markec]

Well, truth is, compared to F:NV, F3 is still more successful in terms of sales, as much as it saddens me.

Actually I believe that NV outsold F3.

That's also a quirky case, as New Vegas used a lot of assets from F3. Basically, most of Obsidian's budget could go into other elements, like voice acting (which is a relief, since engine + assets cost a huge chunk of game's budget).

True but that does not excuse poor writing, poor quest design, poor world design, pretty much every element was poor at best in F3 and inferior to NV and they worked on that game for 4 years while Obsidian had little more then a year. Are you going to tell me that Bethesda worked on creating assets for 3.5 years and then rushed building the game in the last half year and that that is the reason why F3 is a piece of shit.

There's also another factor to consider here - F:NV was also an exploration game

NV is pretty much same game as F3 only much better in every department thats my point.

So the same kiddos that enjoyed F3 gave New Vegas a similar spin, enjoyed exploration, but did they actually delve into the numerous sidequests? They certainly didn't have to; unfortunately, it's not something that can be assessed properly and proved.

Your point is? Who says they didnt play NV for 7 times and finish every quest and loved it a lot better then F3, can that be proved. The point is that the game outsold F3, got great reception even among Beth fanboys, was objectively far better game then F3 and was done in less the half effort needed for F3.

Now take PS:T as an example. Can you enjoy the game if you don't appreciate all the writing? Doubtful.

But what kind of legacy would PS:T have today if it was first person game that looked like Doom, had cheap synthesizer music and was designed as one long corridor. Great games are sum of great things, what made PS:T classic is not only the writing but also things like art design and soundtrack. NV has its faults but also many great elements, F3 nothing.

 

[karfhud]

Well, truth is, compared to F:NV, F3 is still more successful in terms of sales, as much as it saddens me.

Actually I believe that NV outsold F3.

That's also a quirky case, as New Vegas used a lot of assets from F3. Basically, most of Obsidian's budget could go into other elements, like voice acting (which is a relief, since engine + assets cost a huge chunk of game's budget).

True but that does not excuse poor writing, poor quest design, poor world design, pretty much every element was poor at best in F3 and inferior to NV and they worked on that game for 4 years while Obsidian had little more then a year. Are you going to tell me that Bethesda worked on creating assets for 3.5 years and then rushed building the game in the last half year and that that is the reason why F3 is a piece of shit.

There's also another factor to consider here - F:NV was also an exploration game

NV is pretty much same game as F3 only much better in every department thats my point.

So the same kiddos that enjoyed F3 gave New Vegas a similar spin, enjoyed exploration, but did they actually delve into the numerous sidequests? They certainly didn't have to; unfortunately, it's not something that can be assessed properly and proved.

Your point is? Who says they didnt play NV for 7 times and finish every quest and loved it a lot better then F3, can that be proved. The point is that the game outsold F3, got great reception even among Beth fanboys, was objectively far better game then F3 and was done in less the half effort needed for F3.

Now take PS:T as an example. Can you enjoy the game if you don't appreciate all the writing? Doubtful.

But what kind of legacy would PS:T have today if it was first person game that looked like Doom, had cheap synthesizer music and was designed as one long corridor. Great games are sum of great things, what made PS:T classic is not only the writing but also things like art design and soundtrack. NV has its faults but also many great elements, F3 nothing.

I'd like to finish this back-and-forth, because there's really no point in dragging this further. Check sales statistics for both games. What you believe isn't really relevant here, after all I'm not a big fan of crucifying Fallout 3, I need to make this clear. While I enjoyed every other Fallout a gazillion times more, it doesn't mean that Beth's take was abysmally bad. There were elements they did pretty well, some quests were memorable (although characters, not so much). For god's sake, it did feel good to play a new Fallout game, back then in 2008.

Your point is? Who says they didnt play NV for 7 times and finish every quest and loved it a lot better then F3, can that be proved. The point is that the game outsold F3, got great reception even among Beth fanboys, was objectively far better game then F3 and was done in less the half effort needed for F3.

Sea grasped what I meant in terms of NV appealing to F3 fans.

But what kind of legacy would PS:T have today if it was first person game that looked like Doom, had cheap synthesizer music and was designed as one long corridor. Great games are sum of great things, what made PS:T classic is not only the writing but also things like art design and soundtrack. NV has its faults but also many great elements, F3 nothing.

You didn't quite understand my point here. Take the most important element out of Torment - what do you end up with? Writing was absolutely crucial. Music, sound effects, art design were superb and completed the game, true, but writing was its spine. Take exploration and a big, open world out of NV and focus on story elements and quests - do you still have the same, huge audience?

 

[Rahdulan]

In my experience, most modern Bethesda fans really do not have a clue about good vs. bad quest design, complexity of interaction, choice & consequence, etc. I think most of Obsidian's positive changes were lost on that audience, much more so than "a bigger nuke launcher!!!!" would be.

Thing is that most of them essentially want a hiking simulator/walkabout game/however you want to call it, especially considering that's what Bethesda is best at because as others said they don't really have direct competition to keep them on their toes. Main thing people complained about in New Vegas was "why I am walled in?" all the while ignoring all the positive improvements Obsidian did in the effort to, you know, make the game an actual RPG once again after Fallout 3. Basically, I'm long-windedly agreeing with you.

 

[markec]

I'd like to finish this back-and-forth, because there's really no point in dragging this further. Check sales statistics for both games. What you believe isn't really relevant here

Well I did check and I remembered the news that in same time frame (one month after release) NV had more shipped units. Now shipped does not mean pure sales for both titles and we can only guess here. I assume your 100% sure attitude comes from VGChartz which many dont take seriously and consider that site just pulling numbers from their asses since some disturbers dont put out their sales figure on the open.

after all I'm not a big fan of crucifying Fallout 3, I need to make this clear. While I enjoyed every other Fallout a gazillion times more, it doesn't mean that Beth's take was abysmally bad. There were elements they did pretty well, some quests were memorable (although characters, not so much). For god's sake, it did feel good to play a new Fallout game, back then in 2008.

Well thats your opinion and it really doesnt matter just like mine which is that F3 was abysmally bad, objectively looking NV is far better game, while I can understand some liking F3 more due its theme park exploration it has nothing to do with this discussion.

Take exploration and a big, open world out of NV and focus on story elements and quests - do you still have the same, huge audience?

You can say the same for F3, but imagine that shit focusing only on story and dialog, that would be disaster by Uwe Boll standards.

NV is what it is there is not point to arguing what might be, like if we replace all npc with Care Bears would it still then have same huge audience. The point of this while discussion is that Obsidian made same game as Bethsda only much better and with far less resources.

 

[karfhud]

Yeah, I did refer to vgcharts, for lack of a better source.

To sum up and clarify yet again - I love F:NV. I put it closely behind PS:T as my second all-time favourite cRPG. Chris Avellone and Josh Sawyer have their separate altars of worship in my apartment. Discussion started from "Bethesda has such a gigantic budget, why aren't they making quality games?". I uphold my point that there's no money in making games like F3, up from scratch (you can argue all you want but Obsidian did use a lot of F3 assets, fact; luckily they've put them to a good use), but with the story sophistication of New Vegas. I wish there was, but apparently there's not. Maybe the new generation of games will change that.

 

[DalekFlay]

They prioritize world-building over RPG elements.

This.

We can call Bethesda retards all day long but they're still making billions because they focus on what sells their games.

 

[Infinitron]

Multiple sources have confirmed that Fallout: New Vegas outsold Fallout 3. Roguey and Duraframe300 can tell you more.

 

[Lancehead]

They prioritize world-building over RPG elements.

And neglect some incredible potential; there are few things better in gaming than to explore worlds with RPG systems.

 

[Mastermind]

53 pages for a game that doesn't exist. Codex...

 

[karfhud]

Multiple sources have confirmed that Fallout: New Vegas outsold Fallout 3. Roguey and Duraframe300 can tell you more.

Fair enough.

 

[Roguey]

Multiple sources have confirmed that Fallout: New Vegas outsold Fallout 3. Roguey and Duraframe300 can tell you more.

Uh huh.

there is some weird source that suggests f3 outsold new vegas but that is not true based on anything i ever saw through the end of the last DLC's development. f:nv outsold f3, though it is certainly arguable that f:nv wouldn't have done that without f3 in the first place.

 

[DalekFlay]

Multiple sources have confirmed that Fallout: New Vegas outsold Fallout 3. Roguey and Duraframe300 can tell you more.

I don't think that really changes anything as far as why Bethesda games sell.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't think that really changes anything as far as why Bethesda games sell.

Right now Bethesda don't feel they need to make their games any deeper in order to succeed. But that could change if a credible competitor shows up on the scene and gets lots of kudos from the gaming public and press about its greater depth compared to Bethesda's games. It doesn't even have to sell as much as a Bethesda game. It just needs to sell enough and gain enough positive word of mouth that the Bethesda designers get worried and realize they need to improve their game.

Fallout: New Vegas could have been that game, but I guess its status as a spin-off and reputation as a "buggy Obsidian game" prevented that from occurring.

 

[Ovg]

I don't think that really changes anything as far as why Bethesda games sell.

Right now Bethesda don't feel they need to make their games any deeper in order to succeed. But that could change if a credible competitor shows up on the scene and gets lots of kudos from the gaming public and press about its greater depth compared to Bethesda's games. It doesn't even have to sell as much as a Bethesda game. It just needs to sell enough and gain enough positive word of mouth that the Bethesda designers get worried and realize they need to improve their game.

Fallout: New Vegas could have been that game, but I guess its status as a spin-off and reputation as a "buggy Obsidian game" prevented that from occurring.

Absolutely unlikely to happen. Unwashed masses already, as you said refused F:NV due to "buggy Obsidian game" and hail Fallout 3 as a second coming of christ. On the other hand, there is no credible competitor, and I don't think it's likely that one may come. Fallout is now once again a major franchise due to how lot's of shit popped up after Fallout 3, things like this inane "show" and so many damn cosplayers. We'll stay in shit, if something like that comes, something deeper and more mature, people will refute it on how it offends their delicate morality or is too confusing. Positive word of mouth would be only on the dex, and we know how many fucks bethesda gives about us.

So I guess, Fallout 4 will be shit, and we're gonna get under siege again, with milions of "WHY U HATE FALL 4 ITZ GOOD" threads everywhere.