Fallout 4
I don't care about the location, but I'd love it if instead of more of the same they actually fix everything that's broken with Fallout.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Leisher wrote:I don't care about the location, but I'd love it if instead of more of the same they actually fix everything that's broken with Fallout.
Such as? I'm not looking for the Mad Max version of Elder Scrolls. I wouldn't deny some serious combat balance issues.
Edited By Malcolm on 1406310469
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
None of the Fallout games are made for people like me: explorers. We're the folks who want to see everything and take our time going through a game. That means that while the story might want us to go to X, we're walking around to B, F, or Q.
Maybe the games are too wide open, and that's bad because their story lines are so fragile.
They should take a page from GTA's play book and learn to section off portions of their game to prevent folks from breaking major parts of the story just because they wanted to explore a little bit.
It's just soooooo stupid to have numerous areas of the map be random places you want explorers to find, but make them indistinguishable from story line places where one wrong move can break the story.
Beyond that, the game just screams "grind". Grinding for experience I don't mind at all. Grinding for loot/cash turns Fallout into an inventory management simulation. That's not as fun.
They could fix that with pets or something similar, ala Torchlight.
Maybe the games are too wide open, and that's bad because their story lines are so fragile.
They should take a page from GTA's play book and learn to section off portions of their game to prevent folks from breaking major parts of the story just because they wanted to explore a little bit.
It's just soooooo stupid to have numerous areas of the map be random places you want explorers to find, but make them indistinguishable from story line places where one wrong move can break the story.
Beyond that, the game just screams "grind". Grinding for experience I don't mind at all. Grinding for loot/cash turns Fallout into an inventory management simulation. That's not as fun.
They could fix that with pets or something similar, ala Torchlight.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
We're the folks who want to see everything and take our time going through a game. That means that while the story might want us to go to X, we're walking around to B, F, or Q.
I went through 3 that way. Granted, it meant some logical wtfs. I hit every map location before I scratched the main story line.
They should take a page from GTA's play book and learn to section off portions of their game to prevent folks from breaking major parts of the story just because they wanted to explore a little bit.
I want to cross a fucking bridge. It cannot be permanently under construction.
It's just soooooo stupid to have numerous areas of the map be random places you want explorers to find, but make them indistinguishable from story line places where one wrong move can break the story.
That is indeed annoying and is a product of shitty design and storytelling.
Beyond that, the game just screams "grind".
What? When? What was making you grind?
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I want to cross a fucking bridge. It cannot be permanently under construction.
First of all, Fallout isn't without it's "invisible walls", so the precedent is there.
Secondly, they can be clever with it. Say it's in New Orleans. During the opening Act, there's a hurricane hitting, and you can't cross a river because it's too dangerous and the bridge is washed out. Once you hit a certain part of the story, the environment is changed with the storm gone and a makeshift bridge up.
That is indeed annoying and is a product of shitty design and storytelling.
Yep. The GTA series does a MUCH better job of keeping the story linear, but allowing for exploration. Of course, you can't rob and murder everyone you see in that game...well, you an, but they hide the important folks until the story unlocks them.
Neither system is perfect, but I think GTA's is miles better because it allows for more types of game play without punishment or breaking the story.
What? When? What was making you grind?
Theoretically, one can skip basically the entire story and just end the game without grinding anything.
However, in another stupid design decision, many story lines can be altered by your skills. The problem with that is you need to grind levels so that your skills have a high enough chance to actually make a difference and give you more options.
On top of that, the whole grind for items/cash is fun for the killing, but lame when you have to sort your limited inventory constantly or return to areas where you had to dump a ton of loot.
Plus, there's the whole "each vendor has a limited amount of cash" thing.
Too much of Fallout seemed to be a hassle for no good reason.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Once you hit a certain part of the story, the environment is changed with the storm gone and a makeshift bridge up.
No. Storms do not come and go with plot points unless I'm running in a game with a timer, like Dead Rising.
First of all, Fallout isn't without it's "invisible walls", so the precedent is there.
I'm willing to accept that if they're the outlying boundaries of the game world. I don't expect to be able to cross from DC to Cali in Fallout 3, for example. If GTA San Andreas wants to stop me from driving to Liberty City, fine, but I don't want the latter to be unlocked after I find the magic macguffin in San Andreas that stops the bridge from being flooded. The original Fallout did have vaults you couldn't get into until you found the proper key to open them. I'll call that a legit way of blocking something off. Fucking key better not be locked, though.
The problem with that is you need to grind levels so that your skills have a high enough chance to actually make a difference and give you more options.
I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of your skills going from novice to god-like expert in the span of a game because you level up enough. Levels as a means of progress is fucking stupid in a game like Fallout. Skills get better, but it's the gear that ought to make a difference. But I'll say there was not a spot in Fallout 3 where I felt like I was grinding.
However, in another stupid design decision, many story lines can be altered by your skills.
That's in there for the replay value.
...the whole grind for items/cash is fun for the killing, but lame when you have to sort your limited inventory constantly or return to areas where you had to dump a ton of loot.
The inventory management within containers and your backpack is fucking hideous. Shitty, shitty design. Wasting a building of muties or robots and having to gather up their shit? Come on, you just took out two dozen of them and you expect to haul off all of their guns, ammo, etc. on your back? Solo? With no impediment to your movement? Loot management.
As an aside, I'll say that I loved the car you got in Fallout 2. Mobility and trunk space were awesome. Vehicles would be an awesome solution to this problem. Why Fallout hasn't revisited that concept is beyond me. Even if the "vehicle" is only a pet capable of hauling items.
Back to the matter at hand, does it suck to go through all that in the beginning when cash really matters? Yeah. I got to the point where I had plenty of cash before too long. Looting's only required because of the next thing you bring up, which was something I hated initially but grew on me...
Plus, there's the whole "each vendor has a limited amount of cash" thing.
Hated this, plus the limited inventory for each vendor. The only drawback was that given their limited amount of cash, my massive fortune should have been dominating the economy of the DC coast. One of the most brilliant things I saw in Fallout 3 was the mission where you could invest in the vendors and boost their inventory. They needed to take that idea and run with it. Why stop at more items? Fuck, I'll throw in enough cash to hire more security, set up a permanent shop, etc. If I have extra items in my house I need to dump off, I can go to one of the vendors that I'm backing, drop them off, then come back in a week to see how much of it has been sold off in the course of normal commerce. I think the first or second Fallouts had vendors with infinity cash to buy your trash. The solution in Fallout 3 seems preferable, albeit with the caveat that the wandering vendors can get killed. That last part does piss me off because it's like they've been wandering the wastes for years, selling their shit, then the Vault Dweller shows up and within a few weeks the Deathclaws eviscerate them all.
The crafting system could also have been a million percent better. Probably designed by the same moron that did the inventory system.
Edited By Malcolm on 1406317692
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
No. Storms do not come and go with plot points unless I'm running in a game with a timer, like Dead Rising.
I'm willing to accept that if they're the outlying boundaries of the game world. I don't expect to be able to cross from DC to Cali in Fallout 3, for example. If GTA San Andreas wants to stop me from driving to Liberty City, fine, but I don't want the latter to be unlocked after I find the magic macguffin in San Andreas that stops the bridge from being flooded. The original Fallout did have vaults you couldn't get into until you found the proper key to open them. I'll call that a legit way of blocking something off. Fucking key better not be locked, though.
You're being ridiculous.
First, it's just an example. Second, if your character gets put into a coma for a week, a storm can't leave the area by the time you wake up?
In Fallout 3 your character is shot in the fucking head and left for dead yet can get up and go on adventure like nothing happened?
Remember, this is a video game, and at times you have to just accept some far fetched ideas.
Or do you really think that each area of Pandora just happens to be naturally built so that your car can't drive out of them?
I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of your skills going from novice to god-like expert in the span of a game because you level up enough. Levels as a means of progress is fucking stupid in a game like Fallout. Skills get better, but it's the gear that ought to make a difference. But I'll say there was not a spot in Fallout 3 where I felt like I was grinding.
If you want to make skills affect potential choices in the story, then you can't force players to grind them to a high enough level in a world where you want open exploration, but doing so can fuck up the story. It's just bad design.
I agree that gear seems like a better choice, but the best gear is available to you almost immediately. No, not if you stay in the first town, but I've seen videos where folks ignore the story line immediately and head out to get the best gear where it happens to be sitting out because the designers didn't think you'd be there until late in the game.
That's in there for the replay value.
Honestly? I'm getting tired of the multiple endings bullshit. Not just Fallout, but all games. However, the concept is even sillier in games like Fallout. There are sooooo many variables that affect the endings, and they're just a silly screenshot anyway.
If your game is fun, I'll play it again like I've done with Half-Life and Portal. Multiple endings aren't enticing me to play a shitty game or a ridiculously long game again. I've got other things to do.
I just find it interesting that this is a trend in gaming when the general public's attention span is at an all time low.
The inventory management within containers and your backpack is fucking hideous. Shitty, shitty design. Wasting a building of muties or robots and having to gather up their shit? Come on, you just took out two dozen of them and you expect to haul off all of their guns, ammo, etc. on your back? Solo? With no impediment to your movement? Loot management.
Yes. Why? Because they make it that important. Again, money can affect the story (and your skills/gear). Even if they don't add a pet, it'd be nice if they could add something to avoid inventory management issues. (And yeah, since the inventory system SUCKS, forcing me to deal with it too often hurts my experience.)
Since this is a post-apocalyptic world and they're so keen on bartering, how about giving players the ability to "call" a preferred vendor once you clear a building or place on a map of hostiles? You can take the best items to sell for full price, but you know all that stuff you left behind? What if once you call that store the game figures out the going rate for everything left behind in said location and gives you a percentage based on the store's prices? Basically implying that you cleared the area for them so they send someone to collect the salvage and kick you a percentage.
Seems like it'd make a kick ass companion feature to this:
Hated this, plus the limited inventory for each vendor. The only drawback was that given their limited amount of cash, my massive fortune should have been dominating the economy of the DC coast. One of the most brilliant things I saw in Fallout 3 was the mission where you could invest in the vendors and boost their inventory. They needed to take that idea and run with it. Why stop at more items? Fuck, I'll throw in enough cash to hire more security, set up a permanent shop, etc. If I have extra items in my house I need to dump off, I can go to one of the vendors that I'm backing, drop them off, then come back in a week to see how much of it has been sold off in the course of normal commerce. I think the first or second Fallouts had vendors with infinity cash to buy your trash. The solution in Fallout 3 seems preferable, albeit with the caveat that the wandering vendors can get killed. That last part does piss me off because it's like they've been wandering the wastes for years, selling their shit, then the Vault Dweller shows up and within a few weeks the Deathclaws eviscerate them all.
BTW, the friends sucked in Fallout 3 too. In fact, ever since some jackass decided that you should "park" friends or have conversations with them at certain times...if you remember, any "friends" in games have been an ignored feature by me. Again, this shit isn't making me want to replay your game. Making things more frustrating to deal with does not increase replayability!
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Basically implying that you cleared the area for them so they send someone to collect the salvage and kick you a percentage.
Hell yes. I remember staging a one-man ass-kicking force to deal with Paradise Falls, started by opening the mutie behemoth cage. I was dumb-fucking-founded that the slaves didn't bolt out of the pen as soon as the guards were gone. The original Wasteland was better with regards to permanent map changes. Fallout? Fucking bandits respawn two days after I clear a place out. The tower storyline (I forget the name) in Fallout 3 was one of the most idiotic designs I've witnessed. The one where the muties move in for a week then go postal. Just wtf?
Second, if your character gets put into a coma for a week, a storm can't leave the area by the time you wake up?
Sure, but what if I decide to just wait around for a week? Why do I have to go under? I don't want time frozen until the plot decides it should move.
Or do you really think that each area of Pandora just happens to be naturally built so that your car can't drive out of them?
Nature's a bitch. And they're at least giving me some tall-ass cliffs that I can't scale without some kind of rope gun.
There are sooooo many variables that affect the endings, and they're just a silly screenshot anyway.
Shit, man. The ending of the game's just a silly screenshot.
BTW, the friends sucked in Fallout 3 too.
NPCs get in my fucking way, all the time, every time, regardless of the game. They can't fight, they can't stealth, they can't stay in one place, they can't stop walking into my line of sight when I'm on autofire, and they're either fragile as glass (most common for escort runs or your companions) or tougher than Chuck Norris's beard (if the designers wanted them to be permanently there).
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Multiple endings aren't enticing me to play a shitty game or a ridiculously long game again. I've got other things to do.
Well, in fairness the original intention of the multiple endings thing was that you'd get your one ending that you earned, and that would be it. No one originally imagined people would play through multiple times to see all the endings. Oh, maybe you'd go back and play it again in a year or two and see a different ending, but otherwise you'd just get the one you got and that would be it.
Me, unless I really loved a game I'll get one ending myself and then go watch the rest on YouTube. Playing through a mediocre game multiple times for a few minutes of different cut scene seems silly.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Bethesda brings down reality on console gamers like Thor smacks motherfuckers with his hammer. Funny how a console "upgrade" should really be called "buying a new machine."
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
A dozen companions.
I'm not a fan of companion systems in RPGs like Fallout and Mass Effect. Ditto for alternate endings.
I think a lot of work goes into it, but I'd bet a very small portion of the fan base ever spends the time and effort to see all the different possibilities. Most people never beat a game, let alone play it again for alternate story lines and endings.
I'd rather they tighten the parties up and make the stories stronger for your companions.
I like that they work on options and people can play their way, but at the same time, that's actually a source of frustration for completionists like me.
Also, more sequels should either access save games or ask the player if they played previous versions and what happened in them IF player choice is such a big deal.
I worked my butt off in Splinter Cell to NOT kill someone, and then as soon as I started the sequel they reference me killing that person multiple times. Do my choices count or not?
Edited By Leisher on 1438005918
I'm not a fan of companion systems in RPGs like Fallout and Mass Effect. Ditto for alternate endings.
I think a lot of work goes into it, but I'd bet a very small portion of the fan base ever spends the time and effort to see all the different possibilities. Most people never beat a game, let alone play it again for alternate story lines and endings.
I'd rather they tighten the parties up and make the stories stronger for your companions.
I like that they work on options and people can play their way, but at the same time, that's actually a source of frustration for completionists like me.
Also, more sequels should either access save games or ask the player if they played previous versions and what happened in them IF player choice is such a big deal.
I worked my butt off in Splinter Cell to NOT kill someone, and then as soon as I started the sequel they reference me killing that person multiple times. Do my choices count or not?
Edited By Leisher on 1438005918
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
I'm not a fan of companion systems in RPGs like Fallout and Mass Effect. Ditto for alternate endings.
I worked my butt off in Splinter Cell to NOT kill someone, and then as soon as I started the sequel they reference me killing that person multiple times. Do my choices count or not?
Mass Effect made the decision to be an RPG and crawl your hard disk for the previous game, then insert those choices into the current one. Splinter Cell ain't an RPG, it's about killing people. Or thiefing, I guess.
I think a lot of work goes into it, but I'd bet a very small portion of the fan base ever spends the time and effort to see all the different possibilities.
I think there are more than a few Bartle-type explorers that get into them, so I think it's more than "small" but maybe not "the majority."
I'd rather they tighten the parties up and make the stories stronger for your companions.
I'd prefer non-retarded NPC AI. Dudes that stealth when I stealth, walk when I walk, run when I run. Dudes whose weapons and armor I can fully swap. Dudes I can give basic tactical commands to, like: (i) go in close and shank or (ii) stay back behind cover and snipe. Rule #1 should be "don't walk into my line of fire."
Edited By Malcolm on 1438006570
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Mass Effect made the decision to be an RPG and crawl your hard disk for the previous game, then insert those choices into the current one.
All sequels continuing a story line should do that.
Splinter Cell ain't an RPG, it's about killing people. Or thiefing, I guess.
It depends which one you're playing. The one I'm referring to had very solid RPG elements where your actions did affect the story and ending. You could end the game working for the government or a terrorist group.
I think there are more than a few Bartle-type explorers that get into them, so I think it's more than "small" but maybe not "the majority."
Only 10% of gamers finish the games they play.
The number of people who replay gamers is even smaller.
I'd prefer non-retarded NPC AI. Dudes that stealth when I stealth, walk when I walk, run when I run. Dudes whose weapons and armor I can fully swap. Dudes I can give basic tactical commands to, like: (i) go in close and shank or (ii) stay back behind cover and snipe. Rule #1 should be "don't walk into my line of fire."
Also an issue, but if you want me to get into the story lines of my companions, give me a reason to have them around, make it easier for me to have them in my group, don't make it impossible for me to realize when I should have certain people in my group (a huge problem with Fallout 3), and don't make talking to them a chore.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”