|
RAGE was pretty and I even liked elements of the 'story'. The gun play is still unparalleled years later, but I'll be pretty goddamn mad if they shove anything that uses baked megatextures down our throats. Not only because of the hideous size:content ratio (RAGE was a pretty small/short game that's 25GB in size), you can't mod it, and there's just a lot of bullshit reasons you'd kind of want Bethesda to keep pushing their catch-all action RPG engine. Skyrim isn't the prettiest but it isn't ugly, and I don't believe there's a good reason to gently caress around with what works, we don't even know what that engine can do, because so much of Skyrim, F3, and New Vegas had to be built around what the xbox 360 and PS3 could do.
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 10:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
SpookyLizard posted:Someone, Cirosan, I believe, made a mod that reintegrated him as a companion, using stuff from Lonesome Road. Check the modding thread. From a few pages ago. That would indeed be Cirosan. That man does amazing things when his self esteem cooperates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:I don't believe there's a good reason to gently caress around with what works, Of course there is, never mind that describing Bethesda's games, which are routinely rife with severe bugs at release as 'working'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Of course there is, never mind that describing Bethesda's games, which are routinely rife with severe bugs at release as 'working'. I'd rather they develop the skyrim engine more. That's all I meant. Speaking literally, bethesda's games ship in a non-functional state. Of course. Still, Id Tech 5 is pretty but if they go down that route the trade off will probably be too much, and make dealing with Bethesda's lovely QA not a matter of modding a band-aid on top of it, but hoping Bethesda deign to fix the bullshit bugs in a future patch. Riot Bimbo fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Nov 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 10:57
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Of course there is, never mind that describing Bethesda's games, which are routinely rife with severe bugs at release as 'working'. Often they are. But Skyrim was much more stable and overall better optimized than any Gamebryo game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 11:55
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:I'd rather they develop the skyrim engine more. That's all I meant. Speaking literally, bethesda's games ship in a non-functional state. Of course. Still, Id Tech 5 is pretty but if they go down that route the trade off will probably be too much, and make dealing with Bethesda's lovely QA not a matter of modding a band-aid on top of it, but hoping Bethesda deign to fix the bullshit bugs in a future patch. EDIT: And poo poo, we can roll our eyes at marketing all we want, but the radiant quest system in Skyrim is interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Often they are. But Skyrim was much more stable and overall better optimized than any Gamebryo game. I was going to say, Fallout 3 wasn't that bad and I honestly don't remember having any issues with Skyrim. I'm cautiously optimistic Bethesda may have gotten their poo poo together when it comes to QA. Though Bethesda games also have the most hilarious bugs so it would be a loss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Man, the main positive thing people have to say about Bethesda's games is that you can fix most of their problems with mods. No way are they going with a less moddable engine next time around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
I don't think they will, either. But, to be honest, as someone who has played all of Bethesda's 'modern' games on both console and modded on PC, I'd take a better base game over one with mods everytime. Because I'm a crazy person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Basically Bethesda needs to hurry up and get Fallout 4 done so ropekid and Obsidian can make another entry in Fallout: The Good Series.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Basically Bethesda needs to hurry up and get Fallout 4 done so ropekid and Obsidian can make another entry in Fallout: The Good Series. Do people really think this is guaranteed to happen? I mean it's not unlikely that Obsidian will be given another shot at Fallout again, but it's far from a definite thing that they will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Honestly, I had a lot of fun with Fallout 3. It doesn't really hold up compared to New Vegas but even today I can go back to it and have tons of fun. It's not a bad game, it's just bad compared to FONV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:Do people really think this is guaranteed to happen? I mean it's not unlikely that Obsidian will be given another shot at Fallout again, but it's far from a definite thing that they will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Are there many other publishers who outsource development of a franchise title to a secondary party? I'm not very familiar with many other game series to know if that is a regular thing. I would assume that Bethesda considers New Vegas a success, but I'm not sure what their internal benchmarks are for those kinds of things. Where the hell is that 'paging Ropekid' button I requested...
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Yeah F3 was awesome and FNV was awesomer. I think what Bethesda did well was create a world that was  personified. Travelling around that game was pretty drat melancholic and looking back I think that was quite a brave thing to do at the time. As an aside I see that it was released a few weeks after the credit crisis kicked off back in 2008, just in time to cheer everyone up again.New Vegas is by and large a much more positive experience, which was a welcome change from F3's unrelenting atmosphere. I really don't think I could have took another 100+ hours of general dispair, but I enjoyed FNV more for having gone through that. So my first hope for F4 is that it doesn't dial everything back to "We're Screwed" again. Also drop the muddy green filter, Christ. graynull posted:Are there many other publishers who outsource development of a franchise title to a secondary party? I'm not very familiar with many other game series to know if that is a regular thing. I would assume that Bethesda considers New Vegas a success, but I'm not sure what their internal benchmarks are for those kinds of things. Where the hell is that 'paging Ropekid' button I requested... Treyarch and the COD series is the most obvious one I'd say. Although feels kind of wrong invoke that name near this series.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:Honestly, I had a lot of fun with Fallout 3. It doesn't really hold up compared to New Vegas but even today I can go back to it and have tons of fun. It's not a bad game, it's just bad compared to FONV. I believe new vegas is just better to look at, it has a bit more of an upbeat atmosphere, well as upbeat as you can get in a post apocalyptic world and you can easily get lost and immersed in that world. I feel it's more polished than Fallout 3 and found it harder to get immersed in the world but that again might be showing the age of Fallout 3 as again Fallout 3 was an excellent game when it first came out as far as I can remember.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Maybe your ability to get lost in a world is increased if the world seems a nice enough place to get lost in. Yeah, all exploration will get you 9/10 times is cazadors, death claws and radscorpians, but there might be a nice little community right around the corner. Like the Super Mutant Ski Lodge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
Fwoderwick posted:So my first hope for F4 is that it doesn't dial everything back to "We're Screwed" again. Also drop the muddy green filter, Christ. So hopefully Bethesda themselves are more interested in looking at what happens well after the apocalypse, and not just how the immediate survivors react. Also, New Vegas was successful. If I remember right it sold just about as well as 3, even though it was kind of a "spinoff" game using the same engine, and didn't have the novelty of Fallout 3 to a general audience. And not just in sales- I think anyone can see that New Vegas did a lot of things right in terms of their plot and setting. I think it would be more than reasonable to expect that Bethesda would look at New Vegas and see what can be done in a modern Fallout game, and apply those lessons to 4. I think the most obvious lessons have to do with moral ambiguity and player choice. Moral ambiguity works well with the setting, and it doesn't mean you have to give up having good "villains" like Caesar's legion, which are pretty clearly bad, but not unsympathetically bad. And flawed "good guys" on the other side are way more interesting than knights in shining As for player choice, if you're going to pretend like you're giving the player a choice, meaningful choices are more fun than a "lol-evil" psychopath side option that the rest of the game does its best to ignore (though I guess you can keep those in, 'cause they can indeed be fun). Meaningful choice is pretty inexorably linked with moral ambiguity- the setting needs to allow for a two reasonable people to approach the same situation in different ways. Honestly, those kinds of things weren't too strongly linked with the Fallout franchise before New Vegas. I can look at the worlds of Fallout 1 and 2, especially the Enclave in 2, and see how Bethesda got 3's story out of that. I hope that New Vegas is a nice strong precedent in the explicitly more choice-oriented, morally ambiguous kind of world that Bethesda might look back at and use for inspiration. The other big thing I enjoyed in New Vegas was the fact that every town had a water source. That kind of nearly pointless attention to detail was the product of a design philosophy that wanted to make a coherent world. Honestly, if Fallout 4 lacks that kind of detail, I won't be heartbroken. It's kind of an aesthetic thing that would make the world feel a lot better. I don't have too much faith in Bethesda to even attempt to pull something like that off though. (Though props to them for the dozens of otherwise pointless farms and other economic details in Skyrim- that did indeed do a lot to pull the world together.) So yeah, I'd honestly expect Bethesda to do a lot better than 3 with 4. I'm not going to dare hope they do better than New Vegas, but I'm optimistic in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Not just water sources but food sources and everything else. That lack of attention to detail in FO4 wouldn't heart break me, but mostly because I have no expectations. I'd probably enjoy Beth's Fallout 4, but mostly through the magic of lowered expectations and substituting the name as "Elder Scrolls: Apocalypse".
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Fwoderwick posted:I think what Bethesda did well was create a world that was I actually preferred 3 over New Vegas for a long time because of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
I just want a drat Fallout game where you can eat food items and have them actually be worth the health you gain back. In basically every Fallout game thus far I've relied almost entirely on Stimpaks because they're so OP compared to normal foodstuffs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:I actually preferred 3 over New Vegas for a long time because of that. I think the biggest reason I like 3 over NV was because I'm a huge fan of exploring giant decaying cities, also a big reason why Last of Us was a hit for me. Basically I'm saying I want to have this game set in like California or something with LA or San Fransisco as the setting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
I want radiant quests that send you to all those unused, near worthless locales they like to add (Corvega Factory, Alexandria Arms, pretty much the entirety of Takoma Park and L'Enfant...heck most of the DC Ruins), and a modifiable UI instead of the extremely inflexible Pipboy interface. Also make the settlements feel lived in. There were only four such settlements in Fallout 3 that I remember, and those were Megaton, Rivet City, Underworld and Tenpenny Tower.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
I don't see why Zenimax wouldn't give Obsidian another shot at a Fallout game, provided that they believe Obsidian can make a worthy Fallout game. Zenimax doesn't hate money and Bethesda will be busy with TES6 after FO4.
Smol fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Nov 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Apart from the weak storytelling and less fleshed out mechanics, the Capital Wasteland's huge size was both its strength, and its weakness. On the plus side, it really feels dangerous and desolate, given the distance between hub areas. I liked that the Mojave felt lived in, but going out on a journey would never get me lost. At the same time, though, the Capital Wasteland feels repetitive, and even the supposedly inhabited zones can come off as a bit dead (example: Canterbury Commons.) Most likely because making such a massive game world gave the developers less time to refine each location and make it interesting and believable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:I just want a drat Fallout game where you can eat food items and have them actually be worth the health you gain back. In basically every Fallout game thus far I've relied almost entirely on Stimpaks because they're so OP compared to normal foodstuffs. Have there been any games that have treated food and water as anything other than just small health potions? The closest I can think of was the Realms of Arkania series where your characters would easily get the flu and possibly die if they didn't eat properly and have dry clothes to wear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Vakal posted:Have there been any games that have treated food and water as anything other than just small health potions? The Exila games, which you may know in their remade form as Avernum, had food items that you used to heal, and separate "food rations" that you had to keep with you or starve to death. The first game was kinda tough because they start you with no food and if you don't find some or don't realize it's a mechanic you starve to death without getting to do anything. There's also NV's Hardcore mode.+ -
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Food can be very useful, but it requires hardcore mode I think? Maybe I'm thinking of rebalance (CCO or Jsawyer, probably) that made it much more useful. I do know that cooked foods and campfire recipes can supplant stimpacks almost. Food can also heal you faster by eating many different things at once. I think Survival may also increase food gains too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Tamayachi posted:I think the biggest reason I like 3 over NV was because I'm a huge fan of exploring giant decaying cities, also a big reason why Last of Us was a hit for me. Basically I'm saying I want to have this game set in like California or something with LA or San Fransisco as the setting. San Francisco was already a city in a Fallout game. It was thriving and unruined. But it was kind of painfully racist and featured some of lamer pop culture jokes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
prometheusbound2 posted:San Francisco was already a city in a Fallout game. It was thriving and unruined. But it was kind of painfully racist and featured some of lamer pop culture jokes. This made me realize that it has been far too long since I've last played FO 1 or 2, something I need to fix right away. As for a setting, I wouldn't be adverse to playing a far north setting, something like Seattle or Tacoma with some Canada mixed in for flavor. Or anything in Europe. A European Fallout could be like a reboot since they could slide away from the 50's-60's decor and go with something new...
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
I've always wanted to see a Fallout game set in China, but considering how China loses it whenever the country is depicted in a bad light in media, it's a no go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
I wouldn't say San Francisco was unruined. It did get hit, and the San Francisco you see isn't exactly the bright and shining city we know. Like most Fallout settlements, it's a bunch of lovely and grungy buildings. I think anyone who went from San Fran to Vegas would probably be pretty impressed. As cool as it is to get big ruined cities to explore, I think I prefer the idea that most of the major cities are like the Boneyard. I was okay with DC as hitting it would be more of a symbolic target than anything else as it's not really a big city and they apparently nuked the president to oblivion. But seeing a city like New York with still standing buildings would be a nice aesthetic, but go a bit against how devastating the bombs were supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I wouldn't say San Francisco was unruined. It did get hit, and the San Francisco you see isn't exactly the bright and shining city we know. Like most Fallout settlements, it's a bunch of lovely and grungy buildings. I think anyone who went from San Fran to Vegas would probably be pretty impressed. As cool as it is to get big ruined cities to explore, I think I prefer the idea that most of the major cities are like the Boneyard. I was okay with DC as hitting it would be more of a symbolic target than anything else as it's not really a big city and they apparently nuked the president to oblivion. But seeing a city like New York with still standing buildings would be a nice aesthetic, but go a bit against how devastating the bombs were supposed to be. They should do a "New New York" style thing where the top layer is a rebuilt city to explore but you can dive below to the ruins of nuked New York for adventure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
I want to see Dog Town, Colorado. I imagine it would look almost like the Pitt but instead of slaves in the lower levels, there's an endless horde of dogs tearing apart whatever they find.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Really, what I want is to see an area caught in perpetual nuclear winter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
Eiba posted:As for player choice, if you're going to pretend like you're giving the player a choice, meaningful choices are more fun than a "lol-evil" psychopath side option that the rest of the game does its best to ignore (though I guess you can keep those in, 'cause they can indeed be fun). Meaningful choice is pretty inexorably linked with moral ambiguity- the setting needs to allow for a two reasonable people to approach the same situation in different ways. SpookyLizard posted:Food can be very useful, but it requires hardcore mode I think? Maybe I'm thinking of rebalance (CCO or Jsawyer, probably) that made it much more useful. I do know that cooked foods and campfire recipes can supplant stimpacks almost. Food can also heal you faster by eating many different things at once. I think Survival may also increase food gains too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Really, what I want is to see an area caught in perpetual nuclear winter. Patrolling the Mojave almost made me wish it, for myself. As for sequel wish-list chat, I really liked the concept of an urban treetop city that was kind of half-heartedly implemented in the Pitt. I'd like to see it extended to an entire network of rickety makeshift bridges cris-crossing between vast skyscrapers so immense that the settlements near the top are independent of those eighty stories below, and street-level is basically a no-man's land of marauding enemies and spell almost instant death to anyone but the hardiest (read: high level) souls. I don't care about specific locales or anything, but I guess the most fitting would be Manhattan, or some other skyscraper dense city. Probably not possible in the current engine, though, or if it is and you jump from the roof you're gonna fall through about seven loading screen before you hit the ground. And it'd be very easy for them to gently caress up and basically make the DC metro area again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
I want a game that plays like Fallout in a CryEngine gameworld.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
Vakal posted:Have there been any games that have treated food and water as anything other than just small health potions? MGS4
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
MGS3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 06:38
|
|