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

[DalekFlay]

Yes, Fallout 3 is about as far from "world building" as you can get. In my fanon it's set at around year 2100, which makes it slightly less absurd, and lets me play it for DC landscapes.

Christ people, when it's said Bethesda excels at world building it doesn't mean they create accurate, realistic or whatever else representations of anything. It means theme parks, areas to fuck around in, which is what the mass market buy their games for. Don't let your different taste turn you ignorant to what they're good at.

Same thing with Call of Duty. I don't enjoy that kind of game at all, but Activision creates the best experience of that style out there, which is why it sells.

 

[Dreaad]

All this world building talk is skewed by game play opinions seeping into the other areas of your brains. Although a mediocre game, Fallout 3 depicted the post-apocalyptic remains of a patriotic, retro-futuristic society that was deep within a cold war mirroring our own society circa 1960, and it did that shit VERY well. This atmosphere alone made me glad I played through it. I would never replay it because the game play itself just isn't strong enough to warrant it. New Vegas, on the other hand, had a pretty good world, but really didn't achieve the same effect. It ultimately just felt like a western with some future tech and warring nations, not that there's anything wrong with that. As opposed to F3, NV would be worth playing through again because of its superior gameplay.

I think I'll pass, between Oblivion, Fallout 3, and New Vegas, I'm completely burnt out on the genre..

To be fair, Morrowind and Daggerfall aren't in the same genre as the Fallouts, and some would argue that they're not even in the same genre as Oblivion considering Oblivion's shit is all retarded.
And if you liked Oblivion I would assume you'd like Morrowind way more, and if not then you're the reason we can't have nice things

And as for Fallout 4, well, without Obsidian being involved it will probably just be Fallout 3 all over again with better grafix or somesuchshit.

Maybe Wasteland 2's huge pending success teaches these fuckos a lesson.

It really depends on what you mean by "world building" if you mean the art direction then yeah sure Fallout 3 is serviceable.
My definition of world building though includes the question of does world make sense from a logical perspective (within whatever sci-fi/fantasy themes it has taken on). In this fallout 3 fails sooooooooooooooooooooooooo incredibly badly. There is no logic at all to anything in Fallout 3, from the town made up of 5 year old children holding off super mutants with a wooden fence, to the town of emo teenagers to the fact that after 200 years no one has yet made any effort to clean their clothes, the infinite supply of food/water in every fucking container in the world even though the NPC's continually harp on about limited resources. The random weapons/ammo that is all over the place, the fact that the raiders outnumber the settlements 10 to 1. Not to mention that even though there are no schools or seemingly education, after 3 generations everyone remembers every detail of the war and how/when/where the bombs fell.
The copy and pasted subways/building/details/hills. Not only that but in many of these places... even the goddamned ENEMY placement is in the same location.
I will say that "The Pitt" was well done in world building terms, now that really felt like a post apocalyptic hell hole in DC, wrecked cars everywhere, metal being scavenged etc etc it even had a pretty interesting two shades of grey story.

To be honest the world building in Oblivion was better than Fallout 3, yes it was generic as fuck but at least there was some variety to the environments and the city's NPC had some common sense logic behind their schedules and placement on the maps.

 

[Broseph]

 

[Crevice tab]

All this world building talk is skewed by game play opinions seeping into the other areas of your brains. Although a mediocre game, Fallout 3 depicted the post-apocalyptic remains of a patriotic, retro-futuristic society that was deep within a cold war mirroring our own society circa 1960, and it did that shit VERY well.

What exactly did Fallout 3 do VERY well? The art direction brought us Megaton and a shitload of repetitive buildings and it was the least shit thing in the game. Every single line of dialogue is either boring or shit and there isn't a single interesting character or quest in the entire game!

 

[Akratus]

The only competent people at Bethesda are the concept artists. This is why buildings can look nice, yet be used in shit level design and world building.

 

[Bahamut]

The only competent people at Bethesda are the concept artists. This is why buildings can look nice, yet be used in shit level design and world building.

That keeps me wondering, how "style" of their games will change, because their main concept artist (who worked on FO3 and Skyrim) is apparently dead

 

[Akratus]

The only competent people at Bethesda are the concept artists. This is why buildings can look nice, yet be used in shit level design and world building.

That keeps me wondering, how "style" of their games will change, because their main concept artist (who worked on FO3 and Skyrim) is apparently dead

I wonder that too, though I think poor Adam did teach the people below him, possibly being able to carry on his style.

 

[2house2fly]

What exactly did Fallout 3 do VERY well? The art direction brought us Megaton and a shitload of repetitive buildings and it was the least shit thing in the game. Every single line of dialogue is either boring or shit and there isn't a single interesting character or quest in the entire game!

Aesthetics and set-pieces are what Fallout 3 does very well. The ruins of the city are just a First Person Shooter Battlefield, true, but they're a very well-constructed First Person Shooter Battlefield. I remember all kinds of sniping super mutants from streets away as I crept around, smacking a raider upside the head with a nail board when I ran out of ammo, running along makeshift walkways atop the shelves of a looted supermarket dropping grenades on the enemies underneath, fighting through the ruins of a hotel to cross a bridge made of debris to access the hospital in the Reilly's Rangers, the list goes on. And a lot of people's memories of Fallout 3 are exciting visual things: that first eye-dazzle moment when you leave the vault, the black and white computer simulation suburb, firing a mini nuke at a gigantic mutant, the elevator ride up the radio tower, Liberty Prime throwing nuclear footballs at the Enclave while reciting propaganda catchphrases, the many random encounters (New Vegas has basically none of these, which is a shame) etc. It's easy to make a trailer out of that sort of stuff, or show it to a friend and get them interested. When someone who likes Fallout 3 but doesn't like the old games or New Vegas brings up the dunwich building (which is so out of place as to be laughable in context, but great for someone who just wants to Experience Aesthetics And Set-Pieces) what on earth can I respond with to convince them New Vegas is better? Caesar using Hegelian dialectics to justify his rapey nerd cosplay empire? Boone finally telling me about the war crime he committed at Bitter Springs? Entering the Followers Outpost with Veronica to find that they've all been killed by her friends? Chief Hanlon's suicide speech? Great moments, but they're not going to make a spectator nudge you aside and take over the controller. That's what Bethesda does well. New Vegas's attempts (like the Strip itself) fall short because they don't have enough experience with the terrible engine to get around its limitations (like how it can only ever display like five NPCs onscreen, even in crowded, impoverished Freeside)

 

[dextermorgan]

Barely Literate

No shit.

 

[~RAGING BONER~]

Tunnel Snakes 4 lyfe!

 

[Mary Sue Leigh]

I played Fallout 3 from beginning to end (and all sidequests I found along the way without looking TOO hard) and I remember not a single thing, visually or otherwise.. Oh wait, one thing I do remember, the painful cringe I did when meeting the sparkly Vampires. :D But honestly that's all.
And maybe when the giant robot Liberty Prime or so got stuck in a building and forced me to reload the game. Now that's two things. And being annoyed with Moira Brown's terrible dialog-

I'll come in again ..

 

[Crevice tab]

Aesthetics and set-pieces are what Fallout 3 does very well. The ruins of the city are just a First Person Shooter Battlefield, true, but they're a very well-constructed First Person Shooter Battlefield. I remember all kinds of sniping super mutants from streets away as I crept around, smacking a raider upside the head with a nail board when I ran out of ammo, running along makeshift walkways atop the shelves of a looted supermarket dropping grenades on the enemies underneath, fighting through the ruins of a hotel to cross a bridge made of debris to access the hospital in the Reilly's Rangers, the list goes on. And a lot of people's memories of Fallout 3 are exciting visual things: that first eye-dazzle moment when you leave the vault, the black and white computer simulation suburb, firing a mini nuke at a gigantic mutant, the elevator ride up the radio tower, Liberty Prime throwing nuclear footballs at the Enclave while reciting propaganda catchphrases, the many random encounters (New Vegas has basically none of these, which is a shame) etc. It's easy to make a trailer out of that sort of stuff, or show it to a friend and get them interested. When someone who likes Fallout 3 but doesn't like the old games or New Vegas brings up the dunwich building (which is so out of place as to be laughable in context, but great for someone who just wants to Experience Aesthetics And Set-Pieces) what on earth can I respond with to convince them New Vegas is better? Caesar using Hegelian dialectics to justify his rapey nerd cosplay empire? Boone finally telling me about the war crime he committed at Bitter Springs? Entering the Followers Outpost with Veronica to find that they've all been killed by her friends? Chief Hanlon's suicide speech? Great moments, but they're not going to make a spectator nudge you aside and take over the controller. That's what Bethesda does well. New Vegas's attempts (like the Strip itself) fall short because they don't have enough experience with the terrible engine to get around its limitations (like how it can only ever display like five NPCs onscreen, even in crowded, impoverished Freeside)

Yes they have some good set-pieces but they also have some very shit ones like Megaton. As for aesthetics: NO! Aesthetics would mean combining those set pieces tastefully and that just doesn't happen in Fallout 3. The dunwich building illustrates this perfectly: good set piece but it doesn't do anything for the game world and Fallout is filled with such shit: the sparkly vampires, Peter Pan town, the fucking superheroes. Liberty Prime might have been good if the game was a satire of cold war America but since Fallout 3 is about throwing random shit around, it ends up being tacky and over-the-top.

 

[Broseph]

a lot of people's memories of Fallout 3 are exciting visual things: that first eye-dazzle moment when you leave the vault, the black and white computer simulation suburb, firing a mini nuke at a gigantic mutant, the elevator ride up the radio tower, Liberty Prime throwing nuclear footballs at the Enclave while reciting propaganda catchphrases

Hey man, Fallout 3 excels. I mean, it's like a fucking Michael Bay movie over here. This shit is great!

 

[Dreaad]

What exactly did Fallout 3 do VERY well? The art direction brought us Megaton and a shitload of repetitive buildings and it was the least shit thing in the game. Every single line of dialogue is either boring or shit and there isn't a single interesting character or quest in the entire game!

Aesthetics and set-pieces are what Fallout 3 does very well. The ruins of the city are just a First Person Shooter Battlefield, true, but they're a very well-constructed First Person Shooter Battlefield. I remember all kinds of sniping super mutants from streets away as I crept around, smacking a raider upside the head with a nail board when I ran out of ammo, running along makeshift walkways atop the shelves of a looted supermarket dropping grenades on the enemies underneath, fighting through the ruins of a hotel to cross a bridge made of debris to access the hospital in the Reilly's Rangers, the list goes on. And a lot of people's memories of Fallout 3 are exciting visual things: that first eye-dazzle moment when you leave the vault, the black and white computer simulation suburb, firing a mini nuke at a gigantic mutant, the elevator ride up the radio tower, Liberty Prime throwing nuclear footballs at the Enclave while reciting propaganda catchphrases, the many random encounters (New Vegas has basically none of these, which is a shame) etc. It's easy to make a trailer out of that sort of stuff, or show it to a friend and get them interested. When someone who likes Fallout 3 but doesn't like the old games or New Vegas brings up the dunwich building (which is so out of place as to be laughable in context, but great for someone who just wants to Experience Aesthetics And Set-Pieces) what on earth can I respond with to convince them New Vegas is better? Caesar using Hegelian dialectics to justify his rapey nerd cosplay empire? Boone finally telling me about the war crime he committed at Bitter Springs? Entering the Followers Outpost with Veronica to find that they've all been killed by her friends? Chief Hanlon's suicide speech? Great moments, but they're not going to make a spectator nudge you aside and take over the controller. That's what Bethesda does well. New Vegas's attempts (like the Strip itself) fall short because they don't have enough experience with the terrible engine to get around its limitations (like how it can only ever display like five NPCs onscreen, even in crowded, impoverished Freeside)

Basically what you are saying is that Fallout 3 has more twitchy popamole gameplay with more EPIC/AWHESOME explosions and less dialog that makes you think. You are the reason there is

 

[Manjuice Nutella]

And a lot of people's memories of Fallout 3 are exciting visual things: firing a mini nuke at a gigantic mutant, the elevator ride up the radio tower, Liberty Prime throwing nuclear footballs at the Enclave while reciting propaganda catchphrases

yes that is the maturity and emotional engagement the gaming needs

rpg codex is so blind to great ideas like nuclear bomb portable catapults, only boring dialogue

(the second one isn't even a "visual thing", it's being teleported to a closed and separated cell for a few seconds)

what on earth can I respond with to convince them New Vegas is better?

I would start with writing, plot, characters and setting that aren't competely retarded and illogical to the very core.

Great moments, but they're not going to make a spectator nudge you aside and take over the controller. That's what Bethesda does well. New Vegas's attempts (like the Strip itself) fall short because they don't have enough experience with the terrible engine to get around its limitations (like how it can only ever display like five NPCs onscreen, even in crowded, impoverished Freeside)

And Bethesda can? In what regard is Girdershade; population: 2 "better" than aforementioned example? Or copy-pasted DC ruins & metro stations? Or Rivet City; population less than Freeside (not to mention the rest of Vegas)? How exactly is "player more in control" true in the case of Fallout 3 than much more abundant and believable roleplaying/character development/dialogue choices, or your influence on the setting in 100+ ending slides?



"nudge the spectator aside, take over the controller"... That doesn't even make any sense. What is the meaning of this newspeak? What does it even mean? Are you trying to appeal to this completely intangible "it's better, I like it more" emotion that cannot be proven and defended, yet is a walkaround for any attempt at discussion that basically invalidates everything because lulz, that's what I think?

This is the problem with you guys. You can't make any evaluation and analysis, take objective measures and derive actual arguments from it. Even if you tried to, it was shown many times that when confronted with analysis everything with Fallout 3 falls apart, and what's left is a bunch of horribly written, retarded illogical inane elements, whereas New Vegas fares much better in this regard in every possible way. You just reply "DC ruins were more cool, I cared for Lone Wanderer and his Dad, could relate to PC being a child leaving Vault 101 for the first time, it was very emotional", etc...

 

[Major_Blackhart]

So what now, we are allowing Bethesda apologists on this board?
Fucking decline, codex.
Fucking decline.

 

[Broseph]

2house2fly, you must be lost. Here are some fine forums that you probably meant to go to.

 

[Borelli]

Saying that Fallout 3 has some good things doesn't make you less edgy nor does it contradict that New Vegas > F3. Chill out guys.

 

[Taxnomore]

Yeah. Everybdy should just think the same.

I had a fun time with Fallout 3. It was nice to get back into the universe although the gameplay did nothing special. I enjoyed it from beginning to end while it was not exempt of criticism. Fuck the haters. Guess what ? I also enjoyed Oblivion. Do I think games like PS:T, Morrowind, or even Magic Candle were better ? Absolutely. Does the fact that there exists better make another game shit ? No : fuck you. Anything you guys can say won't change the damn fact. Write lenghty paragraphs about how the story is badly written and the art direction is awful won't act retroactively on the fact I enjoyed Fallout 3.

Sheesh, you guys don't like Bethesda games. Man, that's so edgy I'm sure you're pissing acid on a regular basis.

 

[Dreaad]

Yeah. Everybdy should just think the same.

I had a fun time with Fallout 3. It was nice to get back into the universe although the gameplay did nothing special. I enjoyed it from beginning to end while it was not exempt of criticism. Fuck the haters. Guess what ? I also enjoyed Oblivion. Do I think games like PS:T, Morrowind, or even Magic Candle were better ? Absolutely. Does the fact that there exists better make another game shit ? No : fuck you. Anything you guys can say won't change the damn fact. Write lenghty paragraphs about how the story is badly written and the art direction is awful won't act retroactively on the fact I enjoyed Fallout 3.

Sheesh, you guys don't like Bethesda games. Man, that's so edgy I'm sure you're pissing acid on a regular basis.

Learn to spell, there's even a spell check to help you out... The fact that you are satisfied with the crap coming out of Bethesda's asshole is why they will never bother making anything better.

 

[Taxnomore]

Yeah. Everybdy should just think the same.

I had a fun time with Fallout 3. It was nice to get back into the universe although the gameplay did nothing special. I enjoyed it from beginning to end while it was not exempt of criticism. Fuck the haters. Guess what ? I also enjoyed Oblivion. Do I think games like PS:T, Morrowind, or even Magic Candle were better ? Absolutely. Does the fact that there exists better make another game shit ? No : fuck you. Anything you guys can say won't change the damn fact. Write lenghty paragraphs about how the story is badly written and the art direction is awful won't act retroactively on the fact I enjoyed Fallout 3.

Sheesh, you guys don't like Bethesda games. Man, that's so edgy I'm sure you're pissing acid on a regular basis.

Learn to spell, there's even a spell check to help you out... The fact that you are satisfied with the crap coming out of Bethesda's asshole is why they will never bother making anything better.

Guess what ? There are a lot of companies that bother making better things. I couldn't care less if Bethesda stayed at their level of quality.

 

[Akratus]

Wow, I thought RPGCodex was more savvy than most game forums. I guess I was wrong, if people can even confuse a post analyzing the difference between F3's popularity and NV's popularity for praise for F3. . .

 

[Taxnomore]

I don't know. It seems liking a certain game is a mortal sin on this place : you are not supposed to do that ! It's funny considering most of the arguments are always "you are not supposed to like it / it's retarted/ Bestheda sucks / Cannot into writing" without any special argument. I have the feeling it started from a legitimate dislike of the game and grew into most people trying to blend in to become true Codexers/Bro. I played FO3 back when I didn't heard of the Codex. I thought it did a lot of things wrong, and that it was very unimaginative in some departments. So what ? I enjoyed it, for the same reasons I do enjoy the occasional stupid blockbuster once in a while. FO3 did a nice job of recreating atmosphere and was an interesting visual update of the series. The gameplay was simplified, but not horrible. I _enjoyed_ it . The world was also fun to explore.

But NO, you are NOT SUPPOSED TO like it. It's just WRONG. And it ends there : the argumentation, the logic, the everything, only to be superceded by copy/paste arguments about writings without trying to get into details most people who post them do not understand. Man, what would happen if people secretly knew they enjoyed FO3 ? THINK OF THE REPERCUSSIONS.

 

[Akratus]

How can you still not get it? Nobody here likes it! Not even 2house2fly! He was simply talking about the differenecs between Fallout 3 and New Vegas, and how Bethesda fans can find the former "epic" and dislike the latter.

 

[Taxnomore]

How can you still not get it? Nobody here likes it!

How can you still not get it ? You're making a broad assumption and yet are talking to a counter-example ; also, I'm not giving a damn about 2house2fly or the retard who directed him to the Bethesda forums. Hell, I'm sure people who enjoyed FO3 wouldn't post about it so as not to be bothered by people holding a certificate of Good Taste such as you.