Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout 4' started by likaq, Apr 10, 2016.
let the butthurt begin
Don't shoot me until I'm finished, that would be rude.
Did they really have to say that? Be that specific?
The final summary was correct, and okay, I know they're the damn RPG Codex, stalwart protector of the classic computer RPGs and all the good in it. But I just wanted to add what I believe, that Fallout should not only cater to cRPG players. Most cRPGs are dead-drop boring (subjective ), and at no point were the originals' signature humour, choices, and overall depth exclusive to the RPG genre.
New Vegas proved that Fallout is defined not by its genre or its gameplay style, but its writing. I'll be straight here - most of those who defiantly defend either the originals' flawed, niche turn-based tactics, or Bethesda's unpolished, anarchic first-person gunplay, do not understand this. Neither side gain more ground than the other. I try not to take a side in this argument, because written and designed properly, almost any kind of game is Fallout in all the aspects that actually matters.
Fallout was the world, not the gameplay.
Alright, now you can shoot me. If you already have, you should be ashamed of yourself.
I was under the impression cRPG was just a general term for western RPGs.
Either way, I find myself in agreement for the most part. Recently, I've been wondering how well a straight shooter in the Fallout universe would fair if the writing of it was to be superior in every way. If Fallout 4 had sacrificed what little mockery of 'choice' it has for the sake of good writing, would we still bash it or would we praise it?
In all honesty, I think the former is more likely, but I don't think it'd be as bad as what we got instead.
New Vegas proved that Fallout is defined by Game Design coupled with writting. Not just writting.
Yeah, cRPG types really do remind me of that one guy who tries to assert that my virtue of his age he is automatically more wise than you. Pretentiousness in my opinion. I played a lot of old 1990s to early 2000s games and i can say with a shadow of a doubt i have some major gripes with one of their most beloved games that the review coincidentally mentioned. That being baldur's gate series. But i did really enjoy planescape torment on the other hand. Just because a game is old and has a cult following doesn't mean its great. I'm playing the witcher series in witcher 2 at the moment and the game's combat system is aids really. I honestly liked the first game's better. It has a dark souls feel to it and that turns it off.
Without getting too side tracked, If a game is made today or decades ago it should be judged by the merits of the story telling, gameplay, and of course bugs. Not if its turn base or fps.
cRPG just means Computer Role playing game.... Like it or not they are on a different category than the modern Western RPG seeing how their Design Goals and philosophy are so radically different. Pointing out the obvious is not pretentiousness...
It's been used often as short-hand term to refer to the classic western RPGs, the majority of which I believe were from before the millennium. It's terminology has shifted over the years, the same way first-world and third-world used to refer to allegiances during the Cold War but now refers to levels of economic development.
Fallout 2 did not have golden writing that would bring teardrops to an angel's eyes. It was the correct balance of solid writing and meaningful choices that made it great, and that formula was reused for New Vegas. That formula is a large part of what makes Fallout.
The same could be said about games in general, so that's a bit of a nitpick there. Besides, neither Fallout 2 nor New Vegas had stellar game design - for their respective genres, I believe both games were fairly clunky. Games in general always need halfway decent game design to actually be games, but what defined Fallout as a game, was its writing.
Games either have the writing to serve the gameplay or the gameplay to serve the writing. If the combat was the bridge between the great moments of making the choices and choosing the dialogue, then you came to the game more for the writing. If the dialogue was the bridge between all the combat, then you came to the game more for the gameplay. I'm willing to bet nearly everybody who enjoyed Fallout 2 and New Vegas came more for the writing than they did for the gameplay.
A turn-based tactics game is equally capable of mishandling the lore as severely as Fallout 4 did. Nothing about the genre Fallout 2 belonged to made it the game it was. So, if a Fallout game was gets released with perfect gameplay (shooter or tactical, no matter) that becomes the pinnacle of innovation, but handles the writing and choices poorly, would it really be a Fallout game?
This quote is my biggest problem with Falloutcry 4;
"Secondly, going after your missing baby strikes me as one of the most pressing and (theoretically) time sensitive goals a person can receive in their lives, and forcing this motivation on the player character of a “do whatever you want” open world game is downright criminally stupid.... Why not wander out into the swamp and collect some baseball memorabilia? The main quest absolutely requires your character to care deeply for their child; the general world design beckons you not to give a damn."
I play BGS games for that choose your own adventure open world and really only expected that same level of freedom all their games have had. To my surprise though somebody sarcastically told Toddler "Yeah that's what we need to showcase Emil's awesome writing," we were then treated to the MQ weaved into all aspects of the game like so much tentacle porn.
Zigzag, I don't think you even understand what game design is...
I think I do just fine, but if you insist, you can explain to me the proper definition of game design and I'll keep it for future reference. Always good to learn new perspectives.
What's your point, though? Do you just disagree? I don't mind. It's always hard for me to figure out others' opinions on things. Just as long as you're straightforward with your point.
I could take or leave the Enclave for the most part, but I thought the political struggle in the Wasteland was wonderfully done; though I suppose, as you said, that it was more to do with the balance between choice and narrative rather than just the latter.
I personally really enjoy isometric games, so I haven't had that much of an issue with the classic Fallouts (though they're not exactly the pinnacle of gameplay), but I believe a lot of fans who prefer New Vegas, even on our very own forums cannot stand the classics for the life of them.
I don't exactly agree that the genre doesn't make the game, but I don't think a certain genre automatically makes it bad, either. New Vegas certainly showed us that the series still had potential even as an FPS, and whatever merits the classics had in their isometric perspective can be easily replaced with the advantages of a first-person perspective.
In essence, they feel different but not where it counts.
This flaw seems inherent in a lot of modern, open-world RPGs; the driving motivation is made urgent in a world meant to be explored at one's own pace. It's not necessarily a bad motivation, but it is maladapted to a sandbox game like Fallout 4.
This article put into words a lot of the grievances I had with the game and, to an extent, Fallout 3 and I'm glad it did. I'm seldom in the presence of people with whom I can discuss these things to the level of depth I'd enjoy, and whenever something irks me in a game (e.g. a nibbling thought in the back of my mind that it didn't make any sense for your father to die at Project Purity) I always tell myself that I'm just being petty and that it's not something I'm meant to be thinking about.
It´s the type of review i would expect from a site like rpgcodex, but an entertaining review, nonetheless.
Urgency can be done right if the devs can put logical stopping points into the game, FO4 has none as it continuously railroads you along. It also goes hand in hand with this need to have some sort of Demigod player character.As much of an over used trope the weak farm boy turned hero is, it sure as hell beats this marty/mary Sue do no wrong we've been getting.
The pretentiousness vibe i'm referring too is the one where if you don't enjoy their game and critize is because of valid reasons for instance in the first Witcher you had the ability to do Area of effect attack when you would get ganged raped in the witcher 2, you just get fucked and if you point this out you get the same old "2deep4u" Or "You're just really fucking bad" No, The game just has a shitty combat system that devolved instead of improving.
I'm willing to debate anyone 10$ on skype or teamspeak to justify the witcher 2's awful combat system. You don't truly know how bad a game is combat system is unless you experience it for yourself.
I agree with everything it said.
And considering how obvious everything he said is; How come other reviewers didn't notice it?
Only conclusion I could come to is the reason I'm currently enjoying a Survival Beta playthrough.
The other reviewers turned off their brains, he didn't.
If you turn off your brain and don't actually 'think' too hard about anything then Fallout 4 is full of neat distractions that'll help you escape reality. Occasionally I stumble across something so dumb and stupidly designed that my brain flicks back on and I just feel contempt and have to exit the game and start it up again when I feel like role-playing as a vegetable.
I enjoyed Fallout 4 on a first playthrough (or the first part of it, anyway); I imagine a lot of reviewers have a schedule and have to play through it with strict time, meaning that the initial awe with it is still present (besides which complaints are still present in other reviews).
There's also the matter of income I'd presume, where the two major sources are page visits and bonuses from companies; the former being easier if the review is positive and the latter only happening if it is positive.
Isn't that corruption? Twisting a narrative to fit some ulterior goal?
While everything they say is ultimately true, I ultimately dislike how they titled it "Shocking Facts"
It isn't undeniable fact, it is ultimately just an opinion, despite how badly I hate it, there are some people who lack taste that would disagree.
I think it would be much better were it titled something like "13 Things wrong with Fallout 4"
I'd assume not, as reviews are exclusively opinion pieces. You can't very well arrest someone for giving an opinion based on something you consider to be wrong, so I suppose it doesn't constitute as deception.
I suppose if you wanted to be really objective, it'd be something along the lines of "13 things I believe to be wrong with Fallout 4", but I see your point.
"Shocking facts" makes it seem as if they're the only person to have thought about these things, as well as claiming to be objective when they are not.