Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowgandor]

I kind of agree with you, but that's because the mostly free roaming of the Bethesda games can give me some freedom paralysis. I'd like to continue the story, but I'm pretty sure I want to finish all side missions in an area first, but some side missions are just a plain bother so I'd like to ignore them, but that feels like skipping part of the game.

[Retropunch]

I really enjoyed all the Bethesda games, but I don't treat fallout 3/4 as sequels really - they're too different from the original to really be seen as the same. It's like when you have a video game franchise and then they make a mobile phone sidescroller; yeah it's the same universe and technically a sequel and whatever, but it's so far removed that it's not really a sequel I'd say.

[Iceblaster]

I really enjoyed all the Bethesda games, but I don't treat fallout 3/4 as sequels really - they're too different from the original to really be seen as the same. It's like when you have a video game franchise and then they make a mobile phone sidescroller; yeah it's the same universe and technically a sequel and whatever, but it's so far removed that it's not really a sequel I'd say.

Does NV count as not a sequel too? Because erm. The originals were isometric crpgs(?). Anything that's not one of those isn't a true fallout game

_{not meant to be inflamatory}

[Retropunch]

I really enjoyed all the Bethesda games, but I don't treat fallout 3/4 as sequels really - they're too different from the original to really be seen as the same. It's like when you have a video game franchise and then they make a mobile phone sidescroller; yeah it's the same universe and technically a sequel and whatever, but it's so far removed that it's not really a sequel I'd say.

Does NV count as not a sequel too? Because erm. The originals were isometric crpgs(?). Anything that's not one of those isn't a true fallout game

_{not meant to be inflamatory}

I meant to add NV to that as well - just forgot.

I agree that anything that isn't a iso-crpg isn't really a sequel to the originals in any real way. Some games can change perspective and still stay sequels (final fantasy for instance) but I wouldn't class the fallout games as one of those.

[Iceblaster]

Ah. As i said, honestly, I haven't found a Bethesda game to disappoint me. I mean, maybe Dishonored 2, but that's mainly because the controls are so fucking weird and it controls so... Floaty, looking wise, that it's been a bit hard to get into it like Dishonored 1.

[hector13]

NV is a pretty fun game though. One of my favourite games.

I have the opposite issue though, I played the not-really-sequels-apparently-:p first, and don't particularly like the original.

I will agree that 3 is pretty naff though.

[miauw62]

I really really like the world of Fallout in theory, but for some reason it resonates much less with me than when I am playing a game like Skyrim. maybe that's just Beth's fault, though.

And I think that while Skyrim had a lot of flaws, it's overall a pretty good game and very enjoyable with mods. It definitely appeals to wider, more casual audiences, but not in a gross (? can't find a good word) way.

[nenjin]

You can't really complain about Fallout sequels....because they're all pretty much the same game. *rimshot* And yet people keep buying them. The same people that complain about them.

[miauw62]

I honestly thought Fallout 4 would be good. Then again, I haven't really played 3 or NV much, and what I did play I've mostly forgotten.

Damn you, Todd Howard! (and yet I still can't be mad at the guy, for some reason. maybe it's how he looks like he is genuinely trying and does genuinely care about the games he makes?)

[CABL]

You can't really complain about Fallout sequels....because they're all pretty much the same game. *rimshot* And yet people keep buying them. The same people that complain about them.

Same with CoD and Assassin's Creed franchises. They both turned into soulless, uninspired cash-grab games, yet people keep buying them and thus keeping Activision/Ubisoft alive.

Note: I dislike AC games because that particular franchise pretty much created/popularised what I call "Ubisoft side missions" (side missions with repetitive objectives, like "collect flags, destroy forts, climb up the towers, etc). And you know what's the funniest thing about those "Ubisoft side missions"? Those "Ubisoft-y" side missions were one of few things which are at least decent in Batman: Arkham Knight! Looks like they can be done right, after all...

[Retropunch]

You can't really complain about Fallout sequels....because they're all pretty much the same game. *rimshot* And yet people keep buying them. The same people that complain about them.

My problem with Bethesda has been that all their open world games run on basically the same engine - fallout 4 doesn't seem like much of a step up from fallout 3 (or any other of the bethesda open world games). I feel they really, really need to step up the engine (which is basically what an open world game lives and dies by) for the next game instead of just a slight improvement, as I think everyone's reaction to Fallout 4 was 'meh'.

I do enjoy all of them though, mainly because I just enjoy open world rpg + mods in general. If it wasn't my most favourite genre, I imagine I'd be a lot less happy.

[Iceblaster]

You can't really complain about Fallout sequels....because they're all pretty much the same game. *rimshot* And yet people keep buying them. The same people that complain about them.

My problem with Bethesda has been that all their open world games run on basically the same engine - fallout 4 doesn't seem like much of a step up from fallout 3

Because Settlement building was natively supported by Fallout 3. Not like we had a jury rigged mod for it.

Because the gunplay is fallout 3 was great and wasn't jury rigged by mods until NV brought it into the series.

Because the graphics in Fallout 3 are exactly the same as fallout 4's.

Because companions in Fallout 3 were as functional as fallout 4's.

Because Fallout 3 supported weapon modding natively without a jury rigged mod for it.

And so on and so on.

The engine isn't being rebuilt for every game, but what studio does that? Valve uses Source on L4D and HL2, but those games are completely different. Bethesda uses the same engine for Fo4 as it did Skyrim. NV, 3 and Oblivion shared the same engine. FO3 and FO4 did not use the same engine.

[itisnotlogical]

I can nitpick Skyrim until the cows come home, but I've played it for 100+ hours and still keep coming back so it must have done something right. I believe if I've spent that long on a game and genuinely had fun, the game can't really be that bad. Greater than the sum of its parts, and all that. Most of my complaints are with the story and writing, which I just ignore anymore.

I thought New Vegas did Fallout pretty damn well, to the point that it's kind of surreal experiencing it in first-person. Fallout 3 is still shit though.

[Retropunch]

Because Settlement building was natively supported by Fallout 3. Not like we had a jury rigged mod for it.

Because the gunplay is fallout 3 was great and wasn't jury rigged by mods until NV brought it into the series.

Because the graphics in Fallout 3 are exactly the same as fallout 4's.

Because companions in Fallout 3 were as functional as fallout 4's.

Because Fallout 3 supported weapon modding natively without a jury rigged mod for it.

And so on and so on.

Yeah, pretty much - all the additions are just incremental. As you said, all of those features were available anyway in earlier games modded, and I don't think any of those are really big upgrades. Settlements are extremely meh un-modded and companions and graphics still suck compared to most modern games.

I'm not saying that there weren't improvements, just that I don't feel the changes have been big enough.

The engine isn't being rebuilt for every game, but what studio does that?

CD Projekt Red. Compare the Witcher 1, 2 and 3 - completely different engines for each, as they developed it in line with the improvements in hardware. So it's not impossible by any means, Bethesda is just really lazy.

[miauw62]

It's not really lazy, it's probably just not worth it to them. Which is a shame, because the games would be much better with an upgraded or even completely different engine.

I doubt it'd feel the same if it wasn't Gamebyro, though. Like Source, it almost has nostalgic value for me