|
In my ideal game if you choose to start shooting up the one Big Post-War City then the game fades to black, calls you a weirdo, and gives you a choice of either uninstalling or forcing you to sit through an anger management class in-game, taught by a Protectron assisted by a pre-war slideshow.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
I was just chatting with a friend about an interesting thing I realized. Fallout 4 won't be for the 360/PS3, which means that we MIGHT just get a game which is natively LAA and can use more than 4GB of memory on release without having to use 3rd party modifications like NV4GB or whatever. Skyrim wasn't even LAA until one of the later patches. Fallout 4 better be from the get go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Morrowind: "With this character's death, the thread of prophecy is severed. Restore a saved game to restore the weave of fate, or persist in the doomed world you have created." Fallout: New Vegas: "[Mission] FAILED." Fallout 4: A recording of Todd Howard berates the player. In it, Howard stammers a "word of warning" to the player: "We're just...we're trying to create some a la carte experiences and we can't, you know, do that if you want to kill important characters!"
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Cream-of-Plenty posted:Morrowind: "With this character's death, the thread of prophecy is severed. Restore a saved game to restore the weave of fate, or persist in the doomed world you have created." loving owns
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Companions in New Vegas couldn't die unless you turned on Hardcore mode so I don't see why this matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Companions in New Vegas couldn't die unless you turned on Hardcore mode so I don't see why this matters. Hardcore mode was a toggle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Hardcore mode was a toggle. Please email todd howard at thoward@bethesda.net to lodge your complaint. I don't see how this matters because a)maybe they'll bring hardcore mode back? and b) those who want their companions to be unessential can mod it that away anyway Lord Lambeth fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Lord Lambeth posted:Please email todd howard at thoward@bethesda.net to lodge your complaint. A letter. A strongly worded, pen to paper letter. Good cursive skills still matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
graynull posted:What a simplistic and reductive way to look at having any structure at all in a game. You know people want this because it worked this way in New Vegas and worked well there right? It wasn't some unobtainable thing we imagined up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
I'm not a huge fan of essential NPCs but I do remember when Dawnguard came out and people were pissed that vampires would attack and kill random unimportant merchants and beggars and such. I think people like the idea of some harsh unforgiving game-world more than they like actually playing in it. Having said that I do like the way Skyrim did it with random companions, where they could be basically stunned by enemies but only finished off by you, that way you could still kill whoever but don't have to worry about that one cazadore or giant radscorpion wandering into town and killing all of Goodsprings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Hardcore mode was a toggle. It also did more then just make companions vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:when Dawnguard came out and people were pissed that vampires would attack and kill random unimportant merchants i feel like thats fair to be miffed about
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Bottom line is if it isn't in the game, which it probably won't be, it can be modded in as a toggle pretty easily. Now onto the bigger problem: that Bethesda games are piss-easy and the only option for more difficulty is turning the enemies into bullet sponges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Companions in New Vegas couldn't die unless you turned on Hardcore mode so I don't see why this matters. Well you see the demo was unexpectedly well received by the thread triggering goon antibodies that seek out any hint of optimism and attempt purge it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:i feel like thats fair to be miffed about That is more of a bug though. I think a nice middle ground would be "essential except when killed by the player". Avoids stupid AI loving stuff up and you can still kill important characters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
I'm psyched for Fallout 4 and yet I can imagine Bethesda making some annoying missteps too 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:You know people want this because it worked this way in New Vegas and worked well there right? It wasn't some unobtainable thing we imagined up. New Vegas also had no large storylines to mess up by doing so. They seem to intend on making some kind of narrative arch which wouldn't lend itself to that. I think essential NPCs are just going to have to be an inherent part of that type of game in limited use. Whether people prefer that to a more bare bones story is just a matter of taste.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I'm not a huge fan of essential NPCs but I do remember when Dawnguard came out and people were pissed that vampires would attack and kill random unimportant merchants and beggars and such. I think people like the idea of some harsh unforgiving game-world more than they like actually playing in it. It's one thing if you know that going in, it's another if things are fairly static and themeparky and then all of a sudden six months later npc massacre Though in my game the starter village got pretty depopulated by dragon attacks anyways
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
graynull posted:New Vegas also had no large storylines to mess up by doing so. They seem to intend on making some kind of narrative arch which wouldn't lend itself to that. I think essential NPCs are just going to have to be an inherent part of that type of game in limited use. Whether people prefer that to a more bare bones story is just a matter of taste. New Vegas not only had 4 different final questlines and was still able to be completed if you hosed up and massacred large swaths of the population, but they made an in-universe invulnerable character who would always let you kill him over and over if you wanted just so that even a player who slaughtered everyone who could be slaughtered could still reach the ending. At no point could you actually make the game permanently unwinnable, no matter what you did, without modding or completely breaking the scripting. I'm going to bet that Fallout 4 will have at least two endings: siding with The Institute or with the Brotherhood of Steel. Maybe include an independent ending as well for people who don't like either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
sout posted:I'm pretty excited for the game, there's definitely some cool looking stuff in there but I am totally bummed out at the speech system and dialogue - while I don't mind a voiced protag this is their casting call dialogue. Good game companies intentionally make casting materials misleading or vague. But Bethesda has a reputation for being really bad at VO, so who knows. open world or maybe you can lobotomize it into a robo dawg? or strap landmines to it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:Good game companies intentionally make casting materials misleading or vague. But Bethesda has a reputation for being really bad at VO, so who knows. This scene was already shown in part at the Microsoft showing. The basic elements of the conversation are there, but the dialogue has been greatly revamped (including adding all the alternate dialogue options) and expanded with more detail. The casting call material is a really simplified version of the scene for audition purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Why would anyone want companions that die in a bethesda game? There's like a 80% chance every time you walk past a rock they will explode.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
graynull posted:New Vegas also had no large storylines to mess up by doing so. Except there was a large storyline. What changed was who you were working for in the end, if anybody. If the NCR hates you or you kill an NPC involved in that questline then you can't complete the game on the NCR's side but you can still side with the Legion or House. If you kill House outright you obviously can't side with him, but you can finish the game with the Legion or NCR. If you kill everybody then you still have the option to make yourself the new de facto leader of the Mojave by virtue of your big Securitron army and loyal robot minion. Something else New Vegas did was house important NPCs in areas where hostile NPCs wouldn't typically go. And they kept aggressive enemies separated enough from populated areas that you didn't have to worry about Deathclaws wiping out Sloan or Powder Gangers totally wiping out Goodsprings (before the scripted raid), even though those enemies were right outside those areas. The only way to kill key NPCs was to do it yourself. I never really did that personally, but having the option is better than just making a handful of people immortal. In games that aren't openworld RPGs, you can get away with stuff like just forcing your guns to not fire when pointed at NPCs or having NPCs kind of "duck and cover" when fired at or whatever. But in the Fallout and Elder Scrolls series there's kind of a precedent set, because you can kill most NPCs. And that makes it all the more jarring when a handful of special characters can't be killed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
I'm sure someone will mod people to be killable, personally I prefer a lot of characters to be essential, especially the dog because otherwise the dog is useless because they die too easy, or end up as a ridiculous brick of HP. Giving companions a reasonable amount of HP but knocking them out on death is a good balance between two kinds of annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
The Dog has been shown to tackle enemies if commanded so he's already a step more useful than the FO3/NV ones
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
graynull posted:New Vegas also had no large storylines to mess up by doing so. They seem to intend on making some kind of narrative arch which wouldn't lend itself to that. I think essential NPCs are just going to have to be an inherent part of that type of game in limited use. Whether people prefer that to a more bare bones story is just a matter of taste. I don't play a video game so that someone can tell me a licensed Forgotten Realms novel grade story inbetween me exploding things. I play video games to make my own story. I think that most people do, because whenever I hear people talking about what happened when they were playing they don't talk about what the developer wrote in unless it has a really meaningful impact on playing the game (all the arguments about which MQ route in New Vegas is the best) or was complete and total garbage (Fallout 3's MQ and ending). They talk about what happened to 'them' as they played the game. New Vegas might have had a barebones story but they at least tried to make the player feel like the protagonist by not trying to force you into the oh so deep and amaze story that the developers thought so highly of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm sure someone will mod people to be killable, personally I prefer a lot of characters to be essential, especially the dog because otherwise the dog is useless because they die too easy, or end up as a ridiculous brick of HP. That was one of the problems with Fallout 3's Dogmeat: he either got the poo poo kicked out of him in one or two encounters, or he would literally tank missiles to the face. There's really no good way to have a faithful dog buddy in a game with such wildly varying power levels among combatants while realistically keeping the dog from dying because he tried to bite the guy with a shotgun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:That was one of the problems with Fallout 3's Dogmeat: he either got the poo poo kicked out of him in one or two encounters, or he would literally tank missiles to the face. There's really no good way to have a faithful dog buddy in a game with such wildly varying power levels among combatants while realistically keeping the dog from dying because he tried to bite the guy with a shotgun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:That was one of the problems with Fallout 3's Dogmeat: he either got the poo poo kicked out of him in one or two encounters, or he would literally tank missiles to the face. There's really no good way to have a faithful dog buddy in a game with such wildly varying power levels among combatants while realistically keeping the dog from dying because he tried to bite the guy with a shotgun. Of course, one remedy would be
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I'm not a huge fan of essential NPCs but I do remember when Dawnguard came out and people were pissed that vampires would attack and kill random unimportant merchants and beggars and such. I think people like the idea of some harsh unforgiving game-world more than they like actually playing in it. Of course they did this long after they released Broken Steel for FO3, which spawned Albino Radscorpions (bullet-spongey motherfuckers with amazing poison damage) within aggro distance of Rivet City, Megaton, Tenpenny Tower, and Big Town. Third time's a charm, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Republican Vampire posted:New Vegas might have had a barebones story but they at least tried to make the player feel like the protagonist by not trying to force you into the oh so deep and amaze story that the developers thought so highly of. You saying that makes no sense to me, because New Vegas was way more "Here's your guy/backstory, here's the characters/factions you're supposed to feel one way or another about, now pick one of four stories to play" than previous Fallouts. They specifically flooded half the map with Deadly Monsters Of Deadly Death for the sole purpose of funneling you through a narrow worldbuilding path so that you don't just peace-out of the Mojave after delivering the Chip. New Vegas's plot lives or dies on you feeling something for the major factions of the story. I would contrast this with Fallout 3, wherein the more nebulous path of direction (sure, you're led to Megaton, but there's nothing stopping you from going in another direction) leads to a more macro-based motivation for players. In 3 it's not about which monolithic group you want to install into power, it's about all remembering those random people and their stories as you go along. This is boltered by the fact that in 3, more of its locations tell a self-contained story than NV.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Dogmeat should be like a budget mysterious stranger. Avoids combat with a % chance to add an attack when using vats. That makes more sense than a narcoleptic dog that falls asleep constantly while tanking bullets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
xutech posted:Dogmeat should be like a budget mysterious stranger. Avoids combat with a % chance to add an attack when using vats. That makes more sense than a narcoleptic dog that falls asleep constantly while tanking bullets. Now that is a genuinely clever idea. Needless to say, it has no business being in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
frajaq posted:The Dog has been shown to tackle enemies if commanded so he's already a step more useful than the FO3/NV ones Also, dogs don't talk. This means he's already more tolerable than any of the Skyrim companions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Did I just land in bizarro world where invincible super-dogs are anything but amazing
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
SexyCommando posted:It turns out dogs aren't very good combatants in gunfights, who would've thought. Dogmeat should be most useful as an early-game companion when you're still fighting bugs/rodents and the occasional small pack of thugs. When you start going toe-to-toe with the Brotherhood and Deathclaws, maybe leave the dog at home? Having a dog somehow survive all the way to the end of the game doesn't seem plausible at all; even the iconic dog from The Road Warrior that most of the Fallout images are based off of was done in by a lovely crossbow. The problem is while you can armor-up your companions the same way you do, the dog is still just a dog by late-game. Counterpoint: Dog is cool and I want to keep dog for the whole game, don't care about realism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:27
|
|
abigserve posted:Did I just land in bizarro world where invincible super-dogs are anything but amazing But you can't role play as Jack Slate!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Counterpoint: Dog is cool and I want to keep dog for the whole game, don't care about realism. Me too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I think people like the idea of some harsh unforgiving game-world more than they like actually playing in it. That's pretty common. For every person in this thread who is completely aware of the ramifications of killing off important NPCs, and even deliberately going through a playthrough with that goal in mind, there's going to be several people wailing over not being able to finish quests or failing quests. I remember reading something about in the early versions of SWTOR that they did allow killing the companions but people had a fit when some of those companions were kinda necessary for some functions like healing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
abigserve posted:Did I just land in bizarro world where invincible super-dogs are anything but amazing Fallout 4 will only be worthwhile if it totally eliminates the prologue, has a text parser instead of dialogue options, removes all voice acting so NPCs can be asked 50 different really specific questions, and lets plot-important NPCs die and force you to reload a save without warning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:33
|
|