Errant Signal - (Spoilers) Fallout 4 and Role Playing
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 окт 2024
- Fallout 4 is a really cool game when you want to do a bunch of fun things while vacationing in a post apocalypse. It's also an incredibly frustrating game if you grew up with the franchise and want a robust role playing experience. Watch me grapple with those two ideas in this episode!
----
This episode was made possible by generous support through Patreon!
/ errantsignal
----
^ Agree with criticism
> What is Fallout?
v Disagree with criticism
< Sarcastic
+TheFireflyGrave
^ Concrete and predictable option
> Ask for more information
V Conrete and predictable option
< I feel lucky!
+TheFireflyGrave hate criticism
+TheFireflyGrave ^
+TheFireflyGrave
HAVING to kill Kellogg mindufucked me as well, in Fallout I expect to have the option to fight or talk my way out of every situation, rather than "press a button to move the scripted story forward".
+gtabro1337 Even worse example coming up!
*Brotherhood Of Steel spoilers! Brotherhood Of Steel Spoilers!*
So, at one point, the BOS asks you to go save a scientist form the Institute so they can make their super-weapon work again. They stress that if they don't have the scientist, they'll be in deep shit and won't be able to finish it, which will make it "a short war" for them. To get the scientist, you have to infiltrate the Institute. Cool. So I enter the Institute, talk to Father... and I decide that, my character, in their emotional turmoil, having found out the son they're trying to rescue has an ideology completely different from their own... shoots Father in the head out of grief because "this is not my son&". Blam. So, infiltration ruined!
Quest updates: tell the BOS you failed. I'm like, yay, the game will allow me to fail! Go back to Maxwell, he chews me out for a moment and then says: "Luckily we figured out another way to fix the weapon, so actually we don't need that scientist after all." and then just gives me the next mission in line as if nothing ever happened!
Then later, during the attack on the Institute, I read a terminal... and it says that that scientist was extracted by me. No she wasn't!
I swear, they must have noticed only late in development that you could fuck up that quest by blowing your cover, then just half-assed a solution by letting you still continue the questline with no change, not even the terminal text is changed...
+Unahim There's a bunch of those unfortunately.
Also some dialogue bits that were obviously originally intended to be statl checks.
mokinokaro
The game was rushed out, no question about it. 6 more months and the game would have been tons more polished.
+gtabro1337 I was really disappointed when I had to replay that part about 5 times, chose different dialogue options every time and the result was always exactly the same.
+gtabro1337 I had 10 charisma by that part and I was rather livid that I couldn't talk him out of it. It bothered me even more when I did the whole "In Kellog's Memories" bit. He seemed like a man who did what he had to do but that he was not beyond reason... Brutal, and sometimes cruel in his struggle for survival but not someone who couldn't be talked down.
It made the scene where you had to kill him, completely ridiculous and forced. Furthermore, why was he murdering people on the way when you were chasing him? It is not the same character they showed us in the memories. That whole part just bothered the shit out of me.
"My idea is to explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun."
-Tim Cain
"Violence is funny! Let's all just own up to it! Violence done well is fucking hilarious! It's like Itchy and Scratchy or Jackass -now that's funny!"
-Todd Howard
Violence is funny tho. That's not the problem with Fallout 4. Well the original games and New Vegas were much violent
@@travisbickle3835 yes but thats where the dark humor in fo1 and 2 came from but not in fallout 4, in fallout 4 it's just standard and done completely seriously as if they didn't understand that what made it funny was how out of the blue it was and how irreverent it was.
Todd doesn’t know how games work
I think New Vegas was more balanced in the whole RP/Power Fantasy aspect.
My ONLY criticism is that on the Higher levels (With the EXCELLENR DLCs mind you) power creep does leave you superhuman eventually
@@RoadAegis it took me way too long to realize you misspelled excellent. I was trying to figure out every possible anagram or hidden meaning behind EXCELLENR
@@RoadAegis if you play on PC check out the JSaywer patch. Its a series of changes made by the lead dev for FNV. makes you way less powerful. If you really wanna mod it check out the guide Viva New Vegas.
This puts into words how I felt about Skyrim. Having little to no experience with western RPGs before I picked it up, I was expecting to play it a lot differently than I ended up doing. I wanted to make my Dragonborn a likeable and compassionate person who travels the world solving people's problems, but ended up with an armored blank slate. That I used to experience other people's stories. I was basically doing the same stuff, just with vastly different motivations, and if this video is any indication, that's something that Fallout 4 also does very well.
+Gear12 There are much better western RPGs.
Witcher 3, Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin
(I don't mention Wasteland 2 as it hasn't got much appeal to a modern gamer.)
+mokinokaro witcher 3 actually shares alot of the same problems that fallout does and skyrim do, geralt has very few dialogue choices sometimes less than fallout, also they make it seem like finding siri is super important but then you can run around for days doing sidequests that have no bearing on the story even going as far as doing horse races and fistfights to make a name for yourself, the new potion system is far dumbed down from what it was in the witcher 2 which was dumbed down from the witcher 1. Is the witcher a fun game, yes, but now that it is open world it suffers the same flaws that bethesda games do.
Yeah, putting Witcher 3 into the same category as masterpieces like Pillars and D:OS is frightening. While Witcher 3 is not a bad game, it's certainly not very good either. Great graphics though.
2-3 years late but I would like to add for the people who stumble upon this and read this further into the future, as well as a response to the first reply. The Witcher doesn’t allow you to roleplay in the traditional sense in the same way that D:OS, and Pillars does but rather allows you to roleplay as a defined character (Geralt in this case) with dialogue options that is in line with Geralt as a character in a book and not how you, the player, have built and spec’d him to be.
The Witcher series is great (I’ve played all 3) but it isn’t what you should be playing if you’re looking for a true rpg.
@@Kaliospectre That's exactly what I was going to say. I've always found the "Witcher 3 > Skyrim" slogan weird because they're not trying to be the same thing. It'd be like saying "Dark Souls > Bayonetta" - all it demonstrates is an incredibly superficial understanding of both games ("RPG", "3rd person hack n slash").
Just hit the 120 hour mark, very much my conclusion as well. For the Bethesda-style game they set out to make, it's brilliant. Compared to the classic CRPG experience some hoped it would be, it's nowhere near hitting that mark.
Right
hey i know this guy
necroposting but I have to disagree. Each game they put out, they lose the thread even more. Gameplay wise fallout 4 has some fun mechanics, but many of them are present in Fallout 3/NV mods (looking at the settlement buildings) and those games are functional RPGs.
Fallout 4 is not.
"What would you, the player, like to do right now?"
"I would like to stop being told how I feel about these characters."
"NO CARE ABOUT YOUR SON AND YOUR WIFE THIS IS NON-NEGOTIABLE
Fallout 4 is like a box of
I'm with SuperBunnyHop. Let Obsidian take the engine and make another Fallout game.
+PowermateV100 Given they are allowed to expand (revert) the dialog system.
+dlakodlak And the skill system, there needs to be skill checks again.
+John Bowrey (RealTerminal) And getting rid of the voiced protagonists, as it would cost a lot more and would limit role playing a lot due to having to record so many lines.
+PowermateV100 Obsidian had the same dialogue selection issue - see Alpha Protocol.
John Bowrey
I think it can be usable. The system is not bad in its structure but in its rules (you can max everything), requirements setting (artificial walls in progress) and its effects (everything converges in a superhero with no deficiencies). F3 and FNV had identical systems too while F3 was very F4-ish and FNV leaned more towards ye olde roleplay.
There are awesome exploration moments with great atmosphere (e.g. Glowing Sea). But then Fallout4 is also 40% inventory management "game" and trying to ignore immersion breaking cringe.
First time I met a certain someone in the Institute, I was wearing power armor and there was no reaction in the encounter. WHAT? Wouldn't you want to take the helmet off? Hug? Something?
+Remi Stardust Worst part of the power armor thing to me is that you can't use it as a disguise. You'd think running around in BoS marked armor would turn some heads.
Ha, good point. Yeah. Hardly any believable character reactions. You can wear a face-concealing helmet and stand infront of sb., pointing a Fatman at their face... no reaction. :(
+mokinokaro Once again? You mean like in New Vegas? Avoid confrontation from the legion with a disguise while there is money on my head. Use a NCR disguise to sneak into the power plant and avoiding the speech/reputation check.
+Remi Stardust I personly HATED the faction based armors.
It was so annoying that I couldn't juse majority of the armors because of that dumb feature.
Sure it makes sense, but it's more annoying than good
+Shadow111111 It doesn't make sense.
Just because someone is wearing an outfits of a faction, doesn't mean they belong to it. That dump.
Your are in wastes where everyone is killing each other and people hardly have stuff to wear. Looting is normal, theft is normal, raiding is normal.
Plus, many wear the gear of a defeated enemy like animals skins. How is this different?
'There's always Wasteland 2' True, but it's a shame to see Fallout universe become an open world shooter with some RPG elements. I really liked the setting and backstory etc. and so it would be pretty sad to see it become less of an RPG. Let's hope Obsidian will make it more RPG like
+Mike dN It's a shame that Wasteland 2 is heavily bogged down with its own problems. The devs kind of refused to look at any of the quality of life improvements made to the genre in the last two decades, meaning WL2 is basically a game for grognards.
It plays like an 80s CRPG in both the best and worst ways.
+Mike dN
especially when the RPG actually "hurts" the open world shooter idea...
+Mike dN : "There's always Wasteland 2" sounds like capitulation/weaseling out of the subject to me. If Fallout was an RPG since 1997, why, when it changes so radically, should any caliber of response be "Well, there's something else you may like out there?"
+mokinokaro What is a grognard? Other than an 19th century french soldier?
It's an expression referring to 80s/early 90s gamers who see that era as perfection in game design and absolutely shun any sort of modern improvements even if the spirit of the game is intact.
My problem, honestly, is that New Vegas gave so much player freedom, while still being enjoyable from a gameplay perspective.
I, as a player, don't enjoy the isometric turn-based style of the original Fallouts. I like my FPS/RPG hybrid. And Obsidian did such an amazing job with NV, giving you loads of chances to be snarky, aggressive, a goody-two-shoes, and even a few choice moments to make a backstory. All of the factions had their pros and cons, and any character you roleplayed would fit into one of them.
And then Bethesda came back and... tore it all away. Charisma got nerfed into the ground, the leveling system feels terribly broken, and there are so few ways of dealing with many situations.
Honestly, the only thing I like about Fallout 4 is the buffs to the companion system.
I'm reminded of a comment in another video by the user TheLuckiestFish
"A tortoise flips onto its back:
Fallout 1
I want to know about the raiders
Ask tortoise more about itself
Agree to help
Choose not to help
Pickpocket tortoise (chance to fail the quest)
Shoot tortoise (in eyes), putting it out of its misery
I'm looking for a water chip (reveal too much information about yourself, causing the Super Mutants to track your vault more easily)
Fallout 2
I'd like some information
Agree to help
Decide not to help
Steal from tortoise, pisses nearby NPC off, NPC shoots you (your luck stat makes NPC miss you and kills tortoise, failing quest)
Pop culture reference about the tortoise
Fallout 3
Yes, I will save the tortoise (save tortoise)
Depends on the caps (save tortoise)
I will not save the tortoise (negative karma gained, all NPCs in area are hostile to you)
[Perception] The tortoise seems to have been put on its back intentionally (save tortoise)
Fallout New Vegas
I will save the tortoise [Goodsprings: IDOLIZED]
I will not save the tortoise
[Barter 30] Double the caps and I'll save the tortoise
[Sneak 30] Sneak past the tortoise without it seeing me
[Big Guns 10/15] I can shoot one of the edges of the tortoise's shell to fling it back over onto it's legs! (points fatman at ground)
Fallout 4
Yes (Flips tortoise)
No (Flips tortoise angrily, WHERE'S SHAUN?)
Sarcastic (Flips tortoise, makes pop culture reference about pubescent mutant turtles)
... (Flips tortoise)"
The biggest problem with FO4's dialogue system is that it tries desperately to ape Mass Effect's, but lacks any context markers whatsoever. In Mass Effect, you had up for "nice" and down for "mean" and right for "progress game" and left for "exposition". They still have all kinds of problems, but there's at least a contextualization for how Shepard is going to respond the situation.
There's flaws, but It at least makes sense there and in Deus Ex, where the character follows one or just a few templates. It totally falls apart in Dragon Age, where the character is supposed to be a totally blank slate with little predefined history, and it falls apart in Fallout 4, too - which can't seem to decide if it's a story about "You The Customizable Player Character," or "You, The Post Apocalyptic Time Traveler Dad We Wrote And Voice Acted."
Honestly, just thinking about it overall, FO4's dialogue structure and even some character building mechanics often feel like Bethesda ran in, stole Bioware-EA's playbook, and then ripped out dozens of pages without any context for what made any of it work. They even have a world-spanning base-building and resource-management metagame ala Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age: Inquisition, except it's totally detached from the rest of the game and seems to lack any narrative impact at all.
why bio chose to make dragon age more like mass effect by having a voiced protagonist and dialogue wheel escapes me.
+Golbleen In Fallout 4, you have up for exposition, down for a positive answer, right for a negative answer and left for the dreaded SARCASTIC option.
It's still a shitty system, but it does have the context markers.
+HOLyPumpgun | Gaming ...Wow. I played the game for 10 hours and never noticed that.
I....*guess* they're using the y-axis for a general 'yes', and the x-axis for a general 'no'? Except when the Sarcastic option is actually yes, and when no means yes, and god Fallout 4's dialogue system blows.
+Golbleen So you've only played for 10 hours and feel fit to criticize the narrative like that? You couldn't possibly know how the story plays out and the options your character is given. They definitely want you to play as the character they wrote as opposed to your own, but the one they wrote is actually very consistent, regardless of which factions you join, betray, destroy, etc.
EvTav couldn't he best the main narrative in 10 hours?
I´m really hoping that in a couple of years we get something akin to what New Vegas was; but I don´t think that will be a probable with the way that the game industry has changed over the course of this few years.
truthfully, a "new vegas 2"would be profitable no matter what.
One thing BethSoft did was make sure that their games have a recognizable name that will sell well. New vegas sold very well (nearly 10 million physical copies), fallout 4 sold even more than that whatever next game with the fallout name will sell very well too
+LN2233 Exactly. Bethesda has a lot of incentive to make a FO spinoff...especially since rumor has it that the next Elder Scrolls game is awhile off. I love the games Bethesda makes, but I do wish they were more into role playing elements..I'd be ecstatic if Obsidian did a New Vegas 2.
After 76 this is just the peak of funny.
In FO3 and FONV there would occasionally be an option to use skills/perks to unlock unique speech options and I though that was a nice touch, You know, speech and charisma still unlock more extra speech options, but it was a nice surprise every now and again. Is that aspect gone in FO4? Just charisma speech options every so often?
My experience in FO4 so far:
More information
^
Sarcastic < > No
v
Yes
+Darluk It appears that way. One of the main points of the skills where to unlock more options and be able to do different things depending on what you were good at. I absolutely love the complete special system for that reason. SPECIAL, traits, skills and perks is a very simple yet remarkably robust and flexible system. I feel like adapting it for my homebrewn roleplaying settings.
Just found this, I worked on character writing in the Sims Settlements mod. I agree with you on pretty much all of this. Todd can make his action RPGs, I just wish he hadn't done it with Fallout.
Damn, I miss the old dialogue system...
Damn. That's a shame. I hope they don't do the same with the elder scrolls series. I really wanted a second New Vegas :/
+String.Epsilon TES VI will be exactly like fallout 4. Action-adventure game with shallow RPG elements.
+String.Epsilon Well, lots of people consider that they've been dumbing it down from oblivion
Lucky for you, New Vegas was developed by the CRPG paragons Obsidian Entertainment - and not Bethesda.
+String.Epsilon +Nakit Filit
Umm... you guys played any Elder Scrolls games before Skyrim? It's all been one slow glide downhill since Daggerfall and Morrowind. Next time, I'll bet we don't even have stats!
+Wraith skyrim already didn't have any stats (unlike fallout 4)
I always play a super charismatic character. The kind of guy who can convince anyone to do anything because he is so damn charming. Fallout 4 killed that aspect of my character for me to the point where the game wasn’t as fun as it should have been. The new dialogue set up really soured my experience with the game as that was my favorite part of it.
The real sad thing for me is that Fallout 4 has little replay value. In New Vegas siding with Caesar and being in general a 'bad' character was very much different than playing a high karma nice guy. Now there is no real incentive to play again. Main quest line is almost the same regardless what faction you chose.
But still I had so much fun exploring.
+tturonek exactly how I feel. I don't feel like I would want to replay any of F4 except for mods because there aren't many varied options for quests. At least in the elder scrolls games you have multiple play styles (archer, mage, thief etc.) In fallout NV you have multiple factions to choose from with diverse options. At least in 3 you could choose evil or good which is at least better then what you have in 4.
+tturonek Dude, are you fucking high? The main quest line in New Vegas is exactly the fucking same no matter who you're working for. They give you the exact same quests.
My main complaint with FO4 is the lack of roleplaying. The gunplay is really solid, the modding of guns is great. The modding of armor isn't.
+Jagh Haringenamn The modding of guns is fun, but then you realize that system is pretty much the reason there aren't any interesting unique weapons to be found anymore... only boring slightly upgraded versions of normal guns.
+Jagh Haringenamn
well, ID software did the gunplay...
that's said it is dull because the RPG structure make the action shooter parts worse and weightless...
it's ironic this problem in a RPG, right?
+Jagh Haringenamn I'm just sad that you have to kill people to progress. Pacifist runs were really interesting in the older Fallout games.
+1r0zz There is soemthing called an RPG shooter. Basically Fallout 4 is one.
Miss Zombie
a bad shooter and RPG you probably meant.
I'd love to see Obsidian get a chance at creating another Fallout.
Suprised you didnt talk about New Vegas much in this video. I agree with all your points, and I'm sure a lot of would be saying that the transition happened because of the large difference between the play styles of 1,2 and 3,4, and I believe that a lot of people would be saying that this was just how fallout was now and that this was the only way it would work if it wasn't for New Vegas. A lot of the criticisms that people have for F4 probably wouldn't be mentioned if we didn't have NV as a reference to how fallout could work as a role playing game in the bethesda style. Bethesda seems to focus more and more on what they'e known for- big immersive worlds- instead of trying to fix the core issues that almost all of there games have. And I think it is because of all the high ratings and sales their games get. As someone who view fallout and the elder scrolls as two of there favorite franchises, we need to stop giving bethesda the pass on their mistakes. We need to point out the flaws so that maybe one day bethesda can fix the flaws that have been inherit in all of their games.
It's about me as the player?
If I was a straight man maybe that would fly. It feels like it's kind of spitting in my face in its current state, with the forced heterosexual marriage and a main quest centered around me finding the offspring from said marriage.
The removal of a Confirmed Bachelor and Cherchez Lad Femme perks while the heterosexual equivalents (Lady Killer and Black Widow) remain intact.
If the game is meant to be about me as a player shouldn't it be making attempts to...not actively piss me off and disregard people like me at nearly every turn? Shouldn't it avoid forcing a backstory that many people won't relate to or WANT to relate to in their RPGs? Like New Vegas did?
I didn't get very far before giving up and getting back to New Vegas, but everything I did see was poorly written, poorly acted, and unnecessary on top of making it impossible to immerse MYSELF in the game's world.
Bethesda just gets worse and worse at making games, not even just RPGs, as RPGs they're just terribly dumbed down more and more with each new release, but they're worse as games as well. I'd say they don't know how to do Fallout (which they don't which was evident with 3 as well but not nearly as bad), but they don't seem to know how to do Elder Scrolls anymore either. Skyrim is just a boring mess of a game. Pretty but soulless.
I'm probably just rambling and not being very articulate right now but after playing New Vegas and seeing what a modern Fallout game could (and SHOULD) be, Bethesda just pisses me off.
There's also the opening movie that's narrated and completely focused on the male playable character.
So it would probably be alienating to a female player as well as gay ones.
+Steven Millett I understand your point and it does sound annoying, but once you get the backstory out of the way you are free to form whatever kind of relationship you want with the companion characters; hetero, homo, bi, monogamous, polymorphous...everything short of bestiality. There is even what some fans have been calling a vaguely incest one.
As to the backstory thing, well, we are talking about a pre-war world based on 1950s America, so "living a lie" could very well be a thing. And whatever your orientation your child is still your child, even if you only had that child because you were "supposed to."
Arkham Creed Yeah, I'm aware of the romance options but I don't really see the "everyone will romance everyone because they don't have very well-defined sexual orientations" system as particularly great representation.
Fallout: New Vegas had great representation. The Confirmed Bachelor perk opened up many possibilities for me as a gay player that no RPG has ever given me before or since. It had characters who were very openly gay, bi, or lesbians. It touched on the topics of hate crimes and don't-ask-don't-tell policies.
And I also don't really care for the "it's the time period and after the war you're free to express yourself!" defense. Maybe if Bethesda actually made a point of it and tried to discuss homophobia in 1950s America and how hard it would be for everyone involved in one of those lies, but somehow I doubt that's what happens here.
It's unnecessary and heteronormative and insulting.
And I really don't understand why everyone is so eager to defend it and Bethesda. The ability to be gay was present in Fallout 2. They have no excuse for excluding it in Fallout 3 and after New Vegas they'll never be able to excuse it again.
Steven Millett
I get what you're saying, but there are a few points to consider; first and foremost is it not possible that over two hundred years from now, in a post apocalyptic commonwealth, homophobia might not exist and thus not be mentioned? Maybe it isn't an issue in the narrative or mechanics because it isn't an issue in THE WORLD the game takes place in?
And, at the risk of offending you and I'm sorry if I do, but heteronormative is a thing because hetero IS normal. You're a minority. And don't get me wrong I am all for inclusion and representation, but hetero is taken as the default nine times out of ten because hetero IS the default nine times out of ten. Yes it absolutely sucks that people of your preference don't have more representation, and it sucks that Fallout 4 doesn't directly account for that lifestyle, I completely agree. But complaining that the game is "heteronormative" is freaking ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt.
You're abnormal. That isn't a bad thing mind you, but it is not normal. Deal with that. And I am sorry, but fair representation for gays, in a statistical sense, is virtually no representation at all except bitching on the internet and the occasional VMA award.
Me complaining about a problem created for this game that wasn't present in any of the previous ones is ridiculous intellectually bankrupt? But you don't mean to offend? Minorities wanting to be acknowledged in a franchise where they have been acknowledged to great effect in the past is ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt??
But?? You don't mean to offend??
Okay I'm done. Bye.
I never played the original Fallout games (I have them but not the time). I grew up on PnP RPGs, so role-playing comes naturally and I always put myself "in character" in Western RPGs and role-play within the confines of the game space. That includes games like Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age II that have narrow dialogue trees, but also those with broader ones (like Dragon Age: Origins or Fallout 3).
So, I still role-played in Fallout 4, and I generally had a blast. They told me the character had a son and that it was my driving factor, so that determined a lot of my choices. I didn't mess around with the Minutemen or the Brotherhood of Steel because they didn't seem connected to my goal (and since neither one was going to pay me--damn you, failed Charisma checks--they couldn't facilitate that goal in an indirect way either).
But I did work with the Railroad, since they were going after the Institute. And I ended up having one of the best experiences in an open world RPG that I've had in a long time, probably since Dragon Age: Origins, despite the limited dialogue options.
Personally, I didn't see the 1s as average for the SPECIAL system, but I'll admit that I didn't read any of the text on the screen. I spent the exact same number on each stat to figure out what an "average" hero for the game would look like (I can't remember how many points you start with but I think that's at 4 points in each), and then I started sculpting the character from there. I bottomed out Luck, lowered Endurance and Intelligence a bit, and put some points in Strength, Agility, and Charisma. I think the ability to craft the character is still there, but the interface isn't necessarily as welcoming to it.
As the game goes on, you do end up more capable at things you might not have expected (I ended up really diving into the mod system for weapons and armor), but roleplaying should, in my view, also be dynamic, and as the world imposes on you, you have to figure out how your character best responds to it. If you're really concerned about picking up things that don't really fit, the option is there just to expand those SPECIAL stats that you're focused on (though personally I've always found that boring, I suppose so I can understand the desire to want perks but not having anything that "fits").
The Perk system in Fallout 4 is actually rather reminiscent of Feats from Third Edition D&D/d20 System roleplaying, so in that regard I suppose it was more familiar to me as well.
I do lament the lack of dialogue choices generally, but Mass Effect in particular taught me to work as much as I can within the framework that I'm given, I suppose. The dialogue trees in FO3/FONV were generally better. But admittedly, I never finished FONV. I roleplayed in that, too, and when I killed my would-be murderer...my character's motivation was gone, and I retired, as the quests that came after just didn't fit.
Also, since I think this is my first time commenting despite having watched/listened for awhile now, I just wanna say that I always love your commentary, even on games I've never heard of or when I somewhat disagree with you (as I kind of do here--though not entirely, mind you).
+Kevin Morris Good response. You've nailed what people don't realize about FO4, in that it isn't about making whatever character you want, it's about playing a more predefined one ala Mass Effect or The Witcher. You actually get a lot of ways to shape the narrative once you get past the halfway point and find your son.
+EvTav no it isn't. People do not play fallout for the main story like they do with mass effect. If that was the case, then it would fail at that to because compared to Gerald or Shepard the main character is extremely generic and bland.
+EvTav in fallout 4 it's like it can';t decide what it wants, a non existent protagonist who represents the player or an actual character. Either way could work, but instead they have a character that doesn't do either right and because of that it is not enjoyable.
+EvTav That where it enters one of my biggest problems whit the game
The main storyline wants me to roleplay, but the game is tempting me to explore the world, Why the game has a storyline that is about a predifined character, but it allows you to invest in SPECIAL stats, or has a perk system ?, if the game wasnt an open-world action adventure game and had the style of mass effect, then it would been pretty better of what it is
+Santiago Castillo Even then, it wouldnt be an actual Fallout game, because what defined fallout in t the freedom you had, you dindt have to
*Spoilers*
Save the 13, you could join the master and his army, or you could kill everyone in the 13
Fallout 4 doesnt allow you to roleplay as the character you want, and that wouldnt be a problem if the game wasnt build arround the interpretation of your own character and not a predifined, i mean, you are a man who has a loving wife and a baby son, you used to live in a good neighborhood and you talk like a normal person, then you enter the wastelands and Kaboom! you can be a fucking cannibal !
Good fps sanbox, shit RPG. Todd Howard seriously needs to fucking reassess this franchise, god help us all if they turn TES into a sandbox.
+michaelgtho I never played any TES but... is it not a sandbox? I mean isn't Skyrim just like Fallout 4? And Oblivion just like Fallout 3?
+michaelgtho well, they kinda already did turn TES into that with Skyrim, as Skyrim had next to zero quests with options in them.
My oblivion characters were unique in the way they played a very slightly on who they were, skyrim was literally just XP farm until I make a decision eventually
+michaelgtho
isn't tes already that?
I remember that the most possible answers I had in skyrim was around 5/6...
skyrim is a weird game. it's a game designed on combat and the combat is horrible...
+michaelgtho Where have you been all these years Skyrim has been criticised up and down for giving you no input and relying on the combat to solve all problems. Remember the Blades telling you to kill Paarthurnax?
The really sad thing is the general reaction to roleplaying elements and story in a game like this is "lol who cares" or my favorite "go read a book XD" The modern audience Bethesda attracted doesn't want to play an rpg, they just want a big sandbox they can run around in to shoot people in the head and pet a dog.
Thank god we still have Obsidian
+MrZurata Thats the same damn thing we hear from the new Bioware audience.
+MrZurata I really hope we do. We'll only know with time.
No more pets in video games
+MrZurata It would be interesting to see more Roleplaying videogames that dismiss open world exploration, or even combat, and just choose to focus a lot on actual roleplaying mechanics.
Creating games costs money, especially large open worlds, that are extra hard to make. Refocusing the efforts would be a good way to avoid those trappings, and be able to make solid games without having to cater to a large audience.
Most people associate RPGs with stat systems, but tabletop RPG is so much richer than that. (And they have their own Indie wave with more simple, focused and originalk titles that often dismiss strength/intel/charisma stat sheets)
The problem being there that saying "our game is going to be tightly constrained in both world and what you're allowed to do without starting over" means you're cutting out most of your mainstream appeal.
On a ironic note: “how does charisma prevent you from being an alcoholic?” As a dosser whose hung out with functional alcoholics... it’s a thing. I don’t believe Bethesda was clever enough to come up with that deliberately, but as a mistake - it’s a clever mistake :p
Thank you so much for describing this issue as fallout is less about roleplaying than player expression than FALLOUT 4 IS BAD BECAUSE NO ROLEPLAYING
I didn't mind the engine simplifying and streamlining things, to be honest. What really rubbed me the wrong way was the storytelling. I feel like Beth writers are more suitable for "AWESOME EPIC WHOOO"-level stuff that you can find in an Elder Scrolls game.
Fallout's better when there's a bittersweet angle to it, i.e. "you saved your vault from from dying of thirst but stories about your adventures are upsetting the Overseer so you can't come back anymore" or "you freed the people of Nevada from tyrants and bureaucrats but now nobody knows how these people you saved will handle all that freedom"... you know, that sort of thing. I bet even with a forced dialogue wheel and a revamped SPECIAL system, Chris Avellone or Brian Fargo could still pull off a nice post-apocalyptic tale out of these elements.
People need to look up Yahtzee's Deus Ex videos because they add some definition to the Fallout 4 problem. Previous Fallouts were RPGs first and foremost, whereas 4 is an Open World Action Game with RPG elements - definitely not an RPG. Once you recognise that, it becomes another "great game, shit story" type.
Besides, who can be angry when we're all just waiting for Obsidian to get their hands on it and do it right in a couple of years?
I don't buy the Bethesda story that true role playing CAN'T sell anymore and has to be niche. Bethesda has the unique ability to sell basically whatever they want. If they build it, they will come.
+Sharles Davis Kendy It's very obvious they were trying to give the game a more Bioware feel, except that even Bioware knows a RPG needs to be built around decisions.
+mokinokaro
Not just decisions, but well-written, interesting characters. Which is Biowares mission statement.
+mokinokaro The original Mass Effect impressed me a fair bit. Sure I played a very important hero character, but I still had my own solution to things. There was still different ways to do stuff. With enough Paragon stuff I could talk a guy out of shooting the scientist that has tormented him for years.
+Sharles Davis Kendy They'd need employees capable of crafting a good RPG experience though. Finding, hiring and keeping those employees on payroll--and god forbid firing some of their current payroll, that's a financial hassle in and of itself--is expensive for something that in the end would not gain them more sales than they are currently getting. It's not that it wouldn't sell, it's that it wouldn't make them any more money than they're already making and in fact would likely lose them dollars.
Talent is hard to find and even harder to keep and bethesda just doesn't have it and never has.
Bethesda is great at doing open-world adventure games but they suck at doing RPGs (Morrowind being exception).
I respectfully disagree. I think Oblivion was pretty good despite being simplified compared to Morrowind.
there's more to being a role playing game than dialogue choices.
If Betheshda didn't care about the player character, why did they voice them? If the player character is supposed to be a non-entity and a player standin, why give this non-entirty a voice that will remind the player that the character is not her/him?
+Robbert-Jan merk They've tried to create immersive Roleplay experience but failed miserably. That's what happen
+Robbert-Jan merk Probably because it worked for Mass Effect and the Witcher games without actually understanding why those characters were voiced. Geralt of Rivia IS a fully fleshed out character from the word "go." He has his own backstory, his own "class" in a table-top role-playing sense, and his own design. The player is able to interpret parts of his current personality in their choices with limited character interactions that feel normal to the player.
As for Shepherd, he/she might seem like a blank slate character like Nate/Nora from Fallout 4 but at the very beginning of character creation for the first game, the player chose not only where they were born and raised but how they became a hero to humanity. Because in Mass Effect you're already playing an established character in that universe that got to where they are to give them the excuse to be given rank of Spectre Agent. Imagine how awkward it would have been if Shepherd had no history and was simply a recruit with his boots just on the ground being given Spectre status? It would have given the player the idea that ANYONE could be a Spectre if they just did their job.
But Nate/Nora? Except for the fact the male character was drafted into the army and female character has a law degree, they're faceless blank slates of "husband" and "wife" to be infused by the player. If there was a robust system at the beginning of the game where players could choose how they met, what jobs they had before the war, maybe something difficult or bad that happened to them to make a terrible choice (or to do something bad for selfish reasons) and most importantly, more than one player voice to work with, this could have been avoided or at least mitigated from being so alienating.
+darknight910 This is a very good point that I agree with. Worst part is that Fallout 3 kind of got it right. The point of the childhood sequence was to write your backstory and help you establish the character you want. It would be nice if you could design a character, pick someone to date and later marry, decide what career to chose. Even if it only was half an hour it would be a lot more flexible and interesting than what we got.
Seriously, ever since I started writing fiction in my spare time I have realised how clumsy a lot of these multi million dollar projects are. It is downright embarrasing. O.o
I know this is 4 years old but because it's more "cinematic" and therefore more appealing to a wider audience. But voicing a character always reduces the player's ability to sculpt the character (just compare Bioware's games from KOTOR through to Andromeda). For one, voice acting costs tend to restrict the amount of options. But even without that, the voice actor imposes a certain take on every line. In Dragon Age Origins, I got to decide whether a minor insult was a good-humoured joke between friends, snark or genuinely malicious. In Mass Effect, Mark Meer decides that for me.
Its hard developing depth
And Bethesda has a hard time with just the surface.
I have a feeling this will ring true with starfield, the over 1000 planets makes me nervous.
Todd Howard seems to be a nice man, but someone who actually has a thorough understanding of RPGs needs to replace him as Director. Same thing for Designer.
+Snow Mystique Agreed.
You are aware he directed fallout 3 too, right?
Obviously Steve Yes, and it sucked. He also directed Morrowind. His understanding of TES is greater than his knowledge of Fallout. He should either really learn from Obsidian or continue making half-baked Fallout games.
+Snow Mystique if you think fallout 3 is a bad game why are you even interested in the series? Most people would consider that the best of the Bethesda era
Obviously Steve "If you think fallout 3 is a bad game why are you even interested in the series?"
I'm not going to be uninterested in Fallout just because I dislike Fallout 3.
"Most people would consider that the best of the Bethesda era"
That would be Morrowind, not Fallout 3.
The most interesting thing about Fallout 4 is Far Harbour dlc. It demonstrated that Bethesda can still do a good RPG game these days.
"look dumbass, that's not baseball"
50 days later
"GIVE ME SHAUN"
I laughed a lot.
What a brilliantly worded critique! I touched upon Fallout 4's lack of true role-playing in my latest video but you said it far better than I ever could. Subscribed =)
I always have this feeling that game analysts fool themselves thinking that games aren't that bad. We have gotten used to certain bad design practices that no one even cares. Or maybe they are just afraid to not offend the fans. I mean I get it, you can't just go pointing out the skinner boxes and ludonarrative dissonance, etc. in every game analysis. But let's be real. We want better games.
+LeanRight I agree. In 5-10 years Fallout 5 and most other tripleA games will play exactly like goat simulator. If you don't fall in love with all the quirky, goofyness (ie broken, buggy, lacklustre design) then you're just an old curmudgeon and "missing the point". There's no suggestion in this video (or i missed it during a facepalm) that Fallouts been dumbed down to serve the PewdiePie market and sell as many copies as possible. There is no space in that market for nuance, thoughtfulness or anything that might challenge (and i mean in an artistic sense, not skillz).
+TheLeninOfLove Niche games sell less. Game studios want to make money. It's quite simple. Games used to be a niche market with small group of people interested in them. And we still are a niche market, it's just that nowdays basically everyone plays games. So studios focus on them rather than us. I don't like Bethesda games btw, so I just avoid them, did not expect anything else than another Bethesda game set in Fallout universe from F4. But bugs were always there. My favorite games had them as well. Like X-com reverting to beginner, the bugged science tree in Terror from the Deep (gamebreaking) etc.
There is space in the market. Just games you want to play are not going to be made by AAA studios. You'll have to rely on indies and support the few amongst many who can make quality games.
Also yeah, in 5-10 years you'll be an old grumpy fart. Get used to it. That's how life works, there are always those gaps between generations. Same way your parents think their music, culture and everything was better than yours, we'll do the same. In gaming we already are. Can't remember the last time I cared about any AAA release. Many, many years ago. I don't blame them tho. Majority wants it, they get it, I'll sit patiently and wait for something that interests me and support it with my money.
+TheLeninOfLove 14:37 He did make an attempt.
+LeanRight By "certain bad design practices" do you mean
"skinner boxes & ludonarrative dissonance"? I don't think either are necessarily bad.
+Daniel Miller Yes.
Fallout 1 and 2 were not "niche" by any means. Those games had a major mainstream success. Gaming was smaller back then and competition was higher.
+frostwyrm333 Aren't they generally considered some of the best RPGs of all time alongside the two baldur's gate games?
*Sees title*
A spoiler warning for fallout 4...
Oh boy its confirmed.
Fantastic video, man. Your detailed analysis is always appreciated. I couldn't put my finger on why I struggled with what this game is compared to what it once was until you nailed it in this video.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some Fallout 4 to play...
On the note of SPECIALs being levellable=less chance for roleplaying, I'd argue the same thing applied to FO3 and NV replacing SPECIAL stats with the skills. It was fairly easy to be decidedly above average in most areas and maxed out in several by the mid-game.
Conversation though...yeah, no argument. FO4 seriously dropped the ball with a voiced protagonist. Bring on Obsidian's next Fallout!
+Amnestic Yeah, that is a common complaint. Fallout 3 feels great the first 8 or so levels. When you have an armoured vault suit, a security helmet and your trusty 10 mm pistol. Things were dangerous, loot were important, your playstyle mattered a lot.
There is a reason to why the "lowered xp gain" mods are so darn popular. In New Vegas there is practically no drawback to the "Skilled" trait. Stronger starting character in exchange of a more pleasant gaming experience? Really?
I think there's a significant difference between the stories of Fallout games created by Beth Soft, and those created by Obsidian.
Beth Soft creates a very specific narrative, and so the character's core storyline is already set and, as you said, it's less about what story the character follows and more about how the player follows the predetermined story.
On the other hand, FNV featured a much vaguer storyline and was more of a commentary on the lives of New Vegas citizens experienced by a specific citizen: the messenger. However, the messenger didn't have as distinct and character-defining a goal as "activate the water purifier" or "save your son". This ambiguity gave the player a lot more control over what sort of person their character was, and how they navigated objectives and conversation. You saw unique options for dialogue depending on intelligence, perception, charisma etc that aren't possible when you're trying to craft a specific narrative.
You nailed. I didn't play Fallout 4 so much, I kept trying to see what kind of character I could create next. I made a gun slinger, a run and gun soldier, a barbarian - but not as Role playing avatars but because I just wanted to see how the mechanics would let me do things.
So i clocked a lot hours in the games. BUT didn't do the quests and never bothered to finish it. There' is no drive from the game, you have to find your own motivation I think.
A friend of mine Bought me Divinity Original sin around the time I got Fallout 4 and I ended up playing that more because that really felt like a role playing game.
Imagine how awesome a game would be where you could have all these amazing character creation but also the fallout 4 custom armour and buildings and stuff! You could design the armour in a way your character would, maybe adding symbols that mean something to them.
* sees video after thinking of the flaws of fallout 4 for a year *
Ohoho * cracks knuckles * let's do this
I had more fun with the action of Fallout 4 than New Vegas, but I felt more invested in Courier than the Lone Survivor.
I like this video.
The game feels way too stagnated to enjoy to its fullest extent. I wish Bethesda actually innovated instead of pandering to the dog loving console crowd...
***** LOL. Skyrim is not a game for "smart people", it is a game for people who want to press a button to swing a sword and follow a quest marker. Morrowind is still the best TES game and the combat is slightly worse than Skyrim. Bethesda sucks balls at innovating.
***** Do you have any proof that the PC crowd asked for any of that? I'm pretty sure nobody asked for any of that, and base building is not innovative. It's done poorly and sloppily with a shitty UI and hardly any impact on other aspects of gameplay. PC gamers don't ask for pitiful things like "base building", we ask for a FOV slider (not in FO4), vsync (not in FO4) and decent texturing and optimization (neither in FO4). I know that console gamers think that innovation is tacking on a stupid little mini game to your broken and buggy mess of a game, but it ain't, son.
Get off your owner's computer you disgusting, opinionated cat!
+Snarfindorf The base building aspect of the game was definitly tacked on at the last second. It was never fleshed out fully and doesn't feel meaningfully tied to the rest of the game.
+Snarfindorf The base building aspect of the game was definitly tacked on at the last second. It was never fleshed out fully and doesn't feel meaningfully tied to the rest of the game.
I am completely in agreement with this review. It's funny because while playing the game, I've grown to love exploration and scavenging mechanics like in Skyrim but everything base story wise is the least of my interests. The thing that really irks me in Fallout 4 is how determined the game is to tell me what I should want or at least is filled with an assumption of my play style. I never liked the character Dogmeat so I was basically ready to tell the dog off. However, the game explicitly gives a quest marker to the dog, there's no option to outright say for it to buzz off, and is unkillable (yes, it's something that makes me nostalgic for Fallout 3). Another thing is the heavy emphases on power suit armors around the waste. I prefer to play as a light weight sneaking sniper character. So, I have had multiple occurrences of finding a power suit, walking away from it, and then being immediately attacked by overpowered enemies after walking away from the power suit. I guess the game just isn't interested in letting me play my character I want to be unless I want to suffer by not playing their assumed character.
People already loved fallout so i would say most of the dumbed-down changes were pointless. All the casuals are already playing CoD or starwars and all the hardcore fallout fan's are pissed. So who was this game made for exactly? Skyrim fans? Farcry fans?..... Hopefully some of this can be fixed with mods.
+drag00n77 "MODS will fix our shit and we still earn loads of million dollars" Says Todd Howard
+Nakit Filit Remember when they tried to make you pay them for the mods the community made to fix their games? Bethsoft is maybe the worst AAA developer yet gets so little bad press.
Nakit Filit Indeed. Todd Howard is a fraud.
***** If it weren't for the limitless mods i wouldn't even play their games....Dishonored was the only bethesda published game that was actually finished with no bugs but the credit for that goes to arkane studios...not bethesda.
+Blarney Rubble Worse than Activision? No.
I think Bethesda flies under the radar so much because they simply don't release games that they've developed internally that often. It's a Fallout or Elder Scrolls every 3-5 years and that spacing tends to cause the rage to subside between releases.
In fact, all this outcry will vanish by the spring/summer easily. People will just accept it and move on to the next thing that angers them.
Extremely interesting perspective, especially for someone just getting into D&D and getting excited about building flawed characters. This helped me see why I felt that Fallout 4 was so apathetic in some strange way.
Fallout 4 has nothing on New Vegas other than the gunplay and having sprint built into the game. Everything else feels either half baked or poorly implemented.
+hsapin It also crashes far less than New Vegas. That PC port was awful.
I'd argue the weapon modding is a lot better than what New Vegas did as well.
New Vegas beats FO4 heavily in terms of quest design and writing though and those are the core of a good RPG.
+mokinokaro Quest design?
Most quests were just you walking around, killing some enemies and walking back.
Or walking around talk to Person A, then person B, then person A again and congratulation, quest finished.
Atleast majority of the quests.
If that's all you were doing you were missing out. Many quests allowed a lot of creative solutions you wouldn't expect. And there were actual choices and branches
New Vegas has a sprint mod as well as a better settlement construction system
+hsapin I think you have your nostalgia glasses on, while you may have preferred the story more the gameplay itself wasn't much different, "in new vegas you had branches" well if fallout 4 you do as well, new vegas had mr house, yes man, caesar and ncr, Fallout 4 has Minutemen, Brotherhood, Institute and Railroad, and just like New Vegas you can play multiple sides up to a point but in the end you have to dedicate yourself to just one cause. One thing I actually liked in FO4 is that who you choose to ally yourself with can make some tough choices, like being forced to kill some of the followers you have gained because they side with another faction, if you go with brotherhood they will make you kill deacon for example.
Starting out with Bloodlines.. Instant like. And great video; I agree with a lot of points. I miss the character building in FO3 (ie, the party & Butch) and being able to kill everyone I want, but FO4 is still addicting and fun. Its an odd combo.
It really feels like Bethesda wanted to please the dog loving casual consolers that don't give a damn about story or roleplaying (Or even know what that is) instead of innovating anything.
But they did a damn good job making a game that lacks all these features but still is fun as hell!
Fantastic video. I've been trying since I finished the game to put into words how I feel about Fallout 4, but I never could. Now you've basically done it for me.
Getting the power armor so early was wierd and offsetting, coming from Fallout 3.
15:30: "you're supposed to go after your son, which by any measure should be the character's number one priority."
I HATE when games do this! This same problem dragged down The Witcher 3.
I've started calling this particular brand of "ludonarrative dissonance" by a specific moniker: "Open world limbo". It's defined by the game's open world design catering to meaningless, free-form gameplay instead of the narrative that the game is trying to tell. It encourages and incentivizes the the narrative (and many quests) to stagnate indefinitely in "limbo" so that the player can go and do whatever he or she wants with no repercussions. I just published a whole blog about this phenomenon earlier today, and it does include references to Fallout. I haven't played enough of Fallout 4 yet to have included it in this blog, and I'm sad to see that Fallout 4 looks like it's going to fail miserably at being a role playing game.
Anyway, for anyone who's interested, my blog about "Open world limbo" can be found at:
www.megabearsfan.net/post/2015/12/01/open-world-gaming-limbo.aspx
Made a Intelligence 1 character
All 4 options at one point were pretty much from a intelligence 10 character.
Really? What's the point of special anymore?
Christ. How have I never been to this channel before? That was a very intelligent dissection. Subbed, liked and notifications turned on!
Obsidian>Bethesda
This guy hit the nail on the head, especially when it came to the power fantasy stuff. I earnestly tried to make a character who was weak and took out does stealthily from a distance, but a long enough play time translates into you becoming a super combat god no matter what you do
So. Spoilers:
Did You pick Brotherhood, Institute or Railroad for "Your" ending?
Mine was Institute In the supposed idea that I'd as Director get to use the Institute's technological resources to help heal the world and rebuild the Commonwealth. Even if it meant denying the Liberty of some synths for a while. The game seems to have a different idea of what I want to do as Director.
+LeopardInTheMist
I picked BOS, we nuked the institute to bits and then it's implied we're keeping a military presence to police the commonwealth after that.
It was over a year ago now, so some of the details are a little fuzzy, buuuut:
*
Starting off, I helped the Minute Men as much as I could, while also working with the Brotherhood. I don't remember killing the Railroad by the end, so I think I ended up sparing them through the MM quests..
To complete the main quest, I ended up siding with BoS, & helped nuke the Institute (Institute is evil in my eyes, or at least use tech with a warped sense of righteousness- BoS just wants to amass tech and limit others use of it/limit threats to Commonwealth'ers).. But when they wanted me to kill Paladin Danse after everything was said & done, I talked my way out of it & defected.
Admittedly, both factions could be considered 'evil' depending on the player's choice.
In the end, I didn't like the idea that your son was the Director. It made me feel like no matter what, your son was responsible for nefarious deeds, and even if you spared him/felt connected to him you've made the choice to condone said nefarious deeds. The set up was delivered well enough, it just didn't seem to fit the world/choices they put in there.
On my first playthrough I joined and did Missions for all factions. Then I wiped out the Railroad for the Brotherhood of Steel then sided with the Institute when the Mass Fusion mission came about.
You can feel the tension in the project direction. The desire to make a consistent game on its own terms vs playing into the Fallout legacy.
how is not fair to judge a game based on what you want them to do? games are made for consumers they should be for you and if a game doesn't do what you want it to do you should judge it as such. Just because the game did what it set out to do does not mean you should just accept that. The intention of the devs is not unquestionable just because the game is intended to be the way it is does not mean its good.
+vincent78433 Ehhhh, that's fairly shaky logic. The idea of criticizing something for what it's actually trying to do/be is exactly what good criticism is.
Fallout 4 is less focused on role playing and more focused on exploration and player expression. That is, objectively, what the game has tried to do, and therefore it should be judged as such. Subjectively, a person has every right to dislike that and they can explain why, but objectively, you still have to look at the game for what it IS. Does Fallout 4 do exploration and player expression well? YES! So it has succeeded. Does it do role playing well? No, but that's not a core focus of the game anymore.
yes/no. it's always worth talking about what you'd like, and what would be awesome for you - but it's also important to take an objective look at what does work within what the game is as whole, even if it's not what you want at the end of the day.
+Daniel King This is the problem with the way people criticize this game. No one is looking at what it's actually trying to accomplish, they're just judging it based after what they want it to be.
This is why we call gamers "entitled"; because they don't treat their medium like other mediums. They have no respect for the developers. A filmmaker can make a film however they'd like and it would be judged based after the director's goal, but with a video game, the developers goal doesn't matter to the gamers, they only care about what they want. It's pathetic, and I think FO4 is a lot better than people are giving it credit for, they're just criticizing it for being something it was never trying to be.
EvTav that's patently untrue.
Consumers have that attitude about everything if they have that attitude about anything.
professional Reviews in other industries are less subjective, but those don't represent the end Consumer anyways.
+EvTav It doesn't even do what it set out to do right in the first place. The story is clunky as well as the leveling system. If you're going to be something else and supplant an already engaging and deeply rewarding rpg system with something more mindlessly consuming and less thought provoking, it better be at least as good or even better. And it's not like they changed entirely. Rpg is still the core as well as the narrative, these sections are just watered down in favor of player expression. Fallout 4 tries to have its cake and eat it too, but drops the fork on the ground.
Oblivion did it very good.
You started with some base stats, and at each level they increased based on which skills you used. In Oblivion, if you cast allot of restoration spells you would level up willpower. In fallout 4, you can use your rifle exclusively yet still level up your effectiveness with a handgun.
It's a good fun game. Just not a good roleplaying game. Sadly, big budget RPGs aren't really made much anymore. Not in the classical sense anyway. Pillars of Eternity is one of the best CRPGs I've played in years though.
+Slail wasteland 2 and Dinvinity original sin are also there for those into that "niche". Believe Planescape is also being worked on
edit: Torment not planescape
I still haven't gotten around to playing wasteland. I personally didn't care for Original Sin. Not that it's a bad game, just a bit too on the silly side for my tastes.
But it is a well made game and one that uses turn based combat so... I'm glad it did well.
+Slail Wasteland 2 is actually quite good. I'd recommend it if you feel like a long/deep game.
+MomoFerret Just make sure you read the manual. It's following very 80s game design in both the best and worst ways.
This kind of stuff is why I hope a sort of New Vegas type game comes out of Fallout 4. The systems are in place, but stuff like the dialogue and the role playing needs to be fixed. Hopefully we can get a truly great Fallout game out of this.
Fallout 1 and 2 were amazing RPGs. I could be a chem-addict good samaritan, an genius villain, or a complete imbecile who was good at smashing things (god, I loved 1 INT runs). Sad to see how Bethesda bastardized the series into a shooter with very lite RPG elements. Why not just create their own universe instead of soiling a beloved franchise like that?
+Mr. Horseshoe The universe was long soiled before Bethesda got their hands on it with Tactics (still a good game, but bad for roleplaying) and Brotherhood of Steel.
+Mr. Horseshoe Trust me. They are doing the same damn thing with the Elder Scrolls series and many long time fans, like myself, despise how they are removing the R from such a beloved RPG series.
+Mr. Horseshoe Yeah, it's weird how in 4 you can't be a good Samaritan who is addicted to chems, since chems were remov-wait a minute....
+Mr. Horseshoe Because it's a very unique and fantastic backdrop/universe :)
+Mr. Horseshoe What "genius villain"? I'm sorry, but the most evil thing I could do in Fallout 1 I remember was giving away V13 location and willingly becoming a super-mutant(which resulted in a game-over, anyway).
Agreed. It's an adventure game, with some RPG elements. Like Bioshock became (compared to System Shock) an action game, with some RPG elements. Many people seem to think, incorrectly, that "it has some form of character customization == IT'S AN RPG".
+MelancholicThug which I've always found funny. Witcher 3 has very little character customization but it's definitely an RPG.
But I also don't consider the Souls games RPGs since there's zero actual role playing in them. They're straight action games with stat system (same with Diablo and its like.)
And Fallout 4 is in that category too. It's an action game with a stat and inventory system.
Hell, the System Shocks aren't even RPGs imo. There isn't really any roleplaying except for how you decide to approach the combat/puzzles. Deus Ex however is one because the player does have choices that make an impact.
+MelancholicThug I would say that because the Fallout games are RPGs, people assume it will be an RPG.
15:00 - Because Bethesda was stupid enough to take Skills away before figuring out how to retain the same idea without bloating the Perks chart.
Just look at New Vegas, and what Obsidian did, versus this mess.
This video actually inspired me to make a fallout character with real weaknesses, Because it's entirely possible to make a character who's good at everything and that's how I was doing it but now I made a character who has bad charisma and perception and can't talk her way out of a paper bag but can fight decently and is good with a gun but can also patch you up.
I'll get the complete version cheap at the end of 2016.
Great review. It gets really frustrating how if you try to roleplay a concerned parent, the game slaps you on the wrist (damn you Preston, and your endless settlement quests, I'm BUSY looking for my son!) and when you give in and go for that approach, it's suddenly "hey dontcha care about Shaun anymore?". Aargh! Make up your mind, designers! Even Fallout 3 does a better job with the balancing act there; you are at least looking for you father who seems like the kind of guy who can take care of himself while you faff about the wasteland, but here it's an infant and yet NPCs give me the stink-eye when I prioritize my search for him over picking tatos for a random farm.
I don't like Fallout 4 very much but I will certainly hate it if Bethesda's next RPG is more of the same. If Elder Scrolls VI is just Fallout 4 with Magika then one of my formerly favorite RPG devs will have completely failed to deliver. This trend of constant simplification has wore on me since Oblivion started in a very normal Europe with a very normal Hell in contrast to Vvardenfell being an alien world with tick buses and N'wahs. No one does Elder Scrolls like Elder Scrolls, Morrowind being a beautiful if clunky translation of D&D mechanics in a virtual world. I'm more or less okay with "losing" Fallout because the battle has already been lost (Sarcastic?
Elder Scrolls is already a lot like that; Skyrim is especially geared towards people who want to COLLECT ALL THE SKILLS, down to being able to reset your level so you can get more perks.
Skyrim at least still had content. I can go back in and do something I didn't do before like a quest line or explore a corner of the map I'm unfamiliar with. Even if there are some things I missed I FEEL like I did everything in Fallout 4. All the quests outside the main one are boring and repetitive, the locations are so densely packed that you have to be actively avoiding them to make any sort of distance only to hit the border in a few minutes. The only thing worth look back for are the companions, who get very limited interaction because you can only really talk to them about main quest events as it is happening or when you filled their "I like you" meter. Fallout 4 is so far gone but Skyrim can have still be injected with some of the old blood to perhaps >resurrect the old style.
Have you tried the Neverwinter Nights games?
BEST. FALLOUT 4. REVIEW. EVER.
So.. you have the same opinion of the game as roughly 90% of fallout fans
+Smokey The Bear how DARE he
i mean i agree with him 100%, just seems like everyone feels the same way. it's a great game, but it's not fallout
+Smokey The Bear So what? Is it a bad/good opinion (if opinions can even be considered 'good' or 'bad') if its the same with most of the people?
+jockslap To be fair, I feel like Fallout's setting allows a lot more stuff to explore than Wasteland's. If I hear correctly, isn't Wasteland a fairly standard post-apocalypse scenario? No ironic '50s sentiment or sci-fi tech or anti-capitalist messages? In that case, I can see original Fallout fans being upset over having lost it.
+Smokey The Bear I feel like that kind of ignores his thesis? He's saying that Fallout 4's systems fundamentally limit roleplaying and instead put everyone on the same track to generic superhuman. Furthermore, he actually seems to encourage Fallout to ditch its vestigial RPG elements and just fully commit itself to the player-driven adventure sim it wants to be. That's a solid take with a specific direction. I'm not gonna fault it if other people have come to similar conclusions.
Thank god you have comments again!
This was an interesting video. Personally, I kind of feel disappointed in FO4, alot actually. But I did play through it, play allmost all the side quests and so on. I did enjoy it, but I guess I'm left with the sense that it could have been so much more than this.
Thanks for a solid video.
Explain to me how taking away a a custom character enables player expression. That makes no sense at all. Everything you said about player expression, literally all of it, can be applied to Fallout 2 and is applied better because of your custom character who represents the player more. Nothing you described about Fallout 4's advantages is better done by taking away role playing aspects and making it a more shallow game.
Some amazing and interestingly acceptable doublethink going on here, good job!
Isn't doublethink a bad thing?
you've convinced me never to spend money on this
i cant help but see it as dumbing down, its infuriating to me seeing developers pander to the lowest common denominator like this all the god damn time.
+MorroWolf the lowest common denominator spend the most money. That's just how it is.
+MorroWolf the big developers seem to do this. This is why he recommends Wasteland 2. It was made by a small developer who used crowd funding to make a game that they wanted to make.
I like this video because it made me realize how I've never really gotten into the full aspect of role playing. Sure, I've tweaked stats but that was more about selecting skills rather than building a person.
The main problem is that the main story is *terrible*.
Fallout 1 and 2 were written by someone who actually cared about things like science and culture. Fallout 4 is just a guy looking for a kid. Nothing the series previous cared about matters anymore. Super mutants aren't a thing anymore except to act as dumber-than-fuck orcs. The Brotherhood of Steel are just North Eastern American Space Marines. And Boston must be a *really* boring place, based on the kind of things that had to be levered hardcore into the mythos to make it feel regional. Laser Muskets, Minutemen and whatever the hell was up with the underground railroad stuff.
(Seriously, the themes there-in are just bizarre. Are you racist for not liking the human robots, or are black people not really 'people' per se but just a terrifying mimicry? And the answer of course is neither, because Fallout 4 is a shallow husk of a story desperately trying to look big and important by playing with powerful historical memes, however it doesn't actually have anything interesting to say about them at all.)
The point being that Fallout 4 is correct to avoid its main story/RPGing aspects, because they are *really* bad, and there was probably no saving them. Instead it's more or less rescued by being an excellent Skyrim with guns and a workshop.
So it's quite possibly less about actively making choices about how to best construct a game in 2015, and more about how to rescue one from the horrible hipster writing that would have sunk it completely had it been front and center all the way through.
Well, the bad writing can be seen as at least partially the result of the changed focus, which might have left writing as an afterthought, as it is in most video games.
I still found a terribly poignant moment when i had to wipe out the Railroad for the survival of this land's only scientific place..
@@TheAlamla ... You found the evil option poignant?
Errant Signal's points are solid as a rock.
As always, though.
Bethesda should see this.
I have to disagree with you at a specific part. You talk about Bethesda and how they are never really fitted into the standard RPG format and instead have created action RGPs more about you than the character you create. That is only true in recent years. Their main series, The Elder Scrolls have very much been about hardcore RPGs. Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, and even Oblivion were very much about creating a character and creating their own adventure. However, starting with Oblivion, we saw extreme removal of hardcore RPG aspects and saw extreme streamlining. Oblivion was still like a classic RPG, but was simplified. Skyrim took this idea and ran away with it. Dumbing down the gameplay and role playing to such a degree it left a bad taste in players mouths. It is not just you. Many of their long time fans are very angry with Bethesda for their recent games and it looks like things are only going to get worse before they can get better. Fans know Bethesda can make great RPGs, they are just upset that Bethesda seems to be refusing to make them anymore.
The awkward conversations and ultimatums bits are hilarious, and I wish they'd put more thought into that. It immersion breaking. I also totally get your point about the dialogue, but I think the dialogue mods (currently #1 on nexus) can fix the main flaws with that.
Talk about MGS V next, that game was a huge disappointment and a failure to tge MGS franchise.
+Eric Nick Story is cut out by KonamiCHink. But it's still bizzare and memorable. Especially quite's boobies
+Nakit Filit Even then it was still poorly done, quiet has little to no character in her and was used to overly sexualized the character.
I absolutely loathe the new dialogue system and agree it cripples roleplaying. I think SPECIAL being upgradable is good considering the game's systems, however 1 should be as shit as it was before, rather than the average.
Intelligence, Charisma, Strength, etc have to be upgradable because of how the game works. If you start with low Charisma, you can never build a functional town if you can't boost that. If you start with low intelligence, you can never get into weapon modding.
I really wish the stats were more apt to roleplaying, I wish the dialogue was as well. But outside of that, I think it's a fantastic game.
All of the choices Fallout 4 presents you with are entirely meaningless. Bringing different companions along only changes how fights play out and what random nonsense is being said in the background that doesn't affect play at all. Building settlements does literally nothing (except give you a huge excess of junk), and you don't even have significant freedom within the workshop itself. Nearly all the upgrades for weapons and armor are strictly tiered linear upgrades in which the next upgrade is simply better than the last. Even the gear itself is tiered this way. Your dialogue options are nearly completely meaningless, often giving you the exact same result for choosing polar opposite responses.
Fallout 4 is the most condescending game I've ever played. You cannot be evil in FO4. Just try. You can't. You can't kill any critical NPCs. You can't really control who your character is. The difficulty and enemy level scaling is an insulting joke, leading to deaths to bloatflies in 2 hits because they're too far from Sanctuary while I'm destroying super mutants just outside of it. The gunplay is good except that enemies being "difficult" simply means that they're astounding bullet sponges who kill in 1 hit with inferior weapons, often their hands.
The AI is better, but still hilariously exploitable. I killed a Behemoth at level 7 because I had a large tree nearby, and it couldn't figure out how to get around it so it resorted to throwing rocks point blank directly into it until I filled it with enough .38 to die (~250 bullets, no joke). If you ever have a small hill between you and an enemy you'll get infinite free headshots with some minor positioning.
I never feel like I'm not playing a game, and a really half-assed one at that. The lack of meaningful content is boring and the lack of meaningful decisions is disengaging. There are plenty of shitty, generic content munchers out there. Did we really need a Fallout themed one?
I don't get how anyone could play Fallout 4 for long periods of time? The levelling up system leaves too much to be wanted, "Everything" is good and it always feels like you pick the wrong perks, the world is too big, the barter system is shit, and even if you've spent 5 turns killing, looting, returning all the stuff and going back again to the same place, you'll still only be able to afford a thing or two.
In all fairness, I'd say that the rebalanced economy is a positive attribute to FO4. It has always been too easy to break the game by accumulating incredible wealth in Bethesda RPGs of the past.
Yes I bet you bloody people play it to the hardcore too.
Did you really just say that Fallout 4 needed to justify some huge investment to be built? Are you kidding me? It still uses the same damn engine Skyrim used. It looks like shit animations look like shit and voice acting is also terrible. It looks like a cheaply made game. But its ok it's Bethesda. Mods will fix it.
Just compare Witcher 3 upgrade from 2 and then compare New Vegas to this. When a sequel removes features and looks arguably worse you should stop and rethink what you are doing.
yeah you don't know what you are talking about. AAA games of that size are insanely expensive to make, so having mass appeal is just an economic necessity. Also those decisions are play tested to hell, so there's likely good reasons for making them. If you think it looks worse than New Vegas you're either blind or a total idiot.
krrrcht
Witcher 3 again citing as an example is done better for less money. And I LAUGH at your "bethesda playtesting the game"
+OrdoMallius Witcher 3 is in an incredibly unique situation. CDPR get a bunch of funding from the Polish government as its considered "art" and costs are a lot lower just because they're located in Poland. They also have all the GoG money to draw from. They're also their own publisher while Bethesda has to answer to Zenimax.
And Witcher 3 is still just using an upgraded Witcher 2 engine.
Every company sticks with engines they know. The costs for Bethesda to build a new engine alone would greatly outweigh what Fallout 4 cost to develop. That doesn't excuse the animations and voice acting though. Bethesda needs to improve on both.
mokinokaro
Bull. If Bethesda cant make a new engine cause it would be to expensive then why does unreal release it's latest engine for free?
Because Epic make all their money from royalties. Commercial products on Unreal 4 will mean money for them. Plus Unreal 4 is also an upgraded 3 so you're only proving my point.
I thought Human Revoulation was really praised for having actual negotiation in an action RPG rather than speech checks.
It really seems to me that you and Shamus are giving this game a LOT of leeway, and I don't get it. You ripped Fallout 3 APART, and this game is measurably worse in a lot of the same ways. The writing is dumb, the plot is a Railroad (hehe), few meaningful choices are presented to the player in any interactions. Dialogue has been gutted. This is on top of the poorly implemented systems, and the horrendous bugs.
There are things that this game has done well. But I feel that you gave this game WAY too much of a pass, compared to what it could have been, and compared to what has been done before. Especially in the vein of other Bethesda games, this game fails to live up.
As much as Fallout 4 disappointed, holy hell those Piano keys at the start make my brain go brrrr
Fallout 4 is a ok game but it is not a fallout game.
Yes it is. It says so on the cover.
I concluded a while back before release that they would cut rpg complexity for a more robust shooting system. Seems apt enough.
Anyway, good video.
RICO!!!
Know who strangely isn't invincible? Father
My first time through the game I was annoyed at the fake Shaun robot and tossed a nade at father's feet expecting him to just take a knee and we'd continue
Nope
He died. I escaped and had to finish the game with one of the other factions
Lmao
I've always felt weird playing FO4, where despite wishing it could be an exciting and profound experience on the level of NV, I still kept playing because it was just pleasant. This "walking simulator + Diablo" explanation brings me closure.