Fallout 4 - Bigger Battles, Better Shooting and Less Clunky @ Gamespot

[fadedc]

I always hated the combat in Fallout3 and NV. I like shooters, and I like turn based combat, but FO3 did neither of those even remotely well. A better combat system is by far my biggest wish for FO4. I'd be much happier with one good combat system, instead of 2 half-assed ones.

In fairness though, I don't think any of the Fallout games had good combat. In Fallout1 you could win almost any fight easily just by firing your gun on full auto. But at least the fights were short. In Fallout 2 the fights were much longer and harder, but often much more tedious as well. Both the player and the enemies could take a lot more hits, which did allow for some more strategy, but a lot of fights felt like long slow battles of attrition.

 

[Ivanwah]

They tried to implement something similar in Skyrim.

That I didn't know. And yeah, it is difficult to do, but I wonder how much code sharing went between Bethesda and Obsidian in the making of New Vegas. They would have a good head start if there was any. But again, I haven't played New Vegas nor have I seen the hardcore mode being discussed so I don't know how well it worked.

 

[Capt. Huggy Face]

More shooter. Less RPG. Little interest from me.

 

[DArtagnan]

Shooting is a part of the game, so better shooting by itself sounds like an improvement. All the negative conjecture here seems a bit off, and it reminds me of the old Fallout 3 outrage.

I love all the Fallouts, except NV, and shooting was always a big part of them. I certainly remember being in combat a lot in both Fallout and Fallout 2.

This game, like FO3 and NV, is a real-time FPS - so improving the action seems like a very appropriate thing to do.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

From the leaks, bigger battles were expected.

They say that the player could build a base, that this settlement will attract survivors, that survivors could use base facilities and that raiders will attack the settlement.

This calls for bigger battles.

That I didn't know. And yeah, it is difficult to do, but I wonder how much code sharing went between Bethesda and Obsidian in the making of New Vegas. They would have a good head start if there was any. But again, I haven't played New Vegas nor have I seen the hardcore mode being discussed so I don't know how well it worked.

The action of looking for food/water is gameplay material.
In Fall Out settings, potable water/eatable food is scarce, making easier to turn the searchfor food a relevant gameplay feature.
In Skyrim settings, water and food are everywhere. What's the point of requesting from a player to look for water when a river runs one ingame hour away from every location? In the end, it turns out as an automated action.

 

[DArtagnan]

Also, I find it slightly comedic that people try to take away the RPG label in what seems to be an attempt to put it down, as it conflicts with their own personal preferences for the genre.

I guess RPG = "game I personally really want to play" to some people around here

To me, it's just an extremely broad category that means next to nothing, except a quick way to communicate some expected features, but even in that it will fail - as some people seem to think RPG means having bad action gameplay if there's action gameplay there.

I guess quests, character creation, attributes, progression, involved loot system, elaborate crafting system, NPC interaction, C&C, perks and so on aren't enough to make it a "good game" AKA a "true" RPG

 

[zahratustra]

Also, I find it slightly comedic that people try to take away the RPG label in what seems to be an attempt to put it down, as it conflicts with their own personal preferences for the genre.

I guess RPG = "game I personally really want to play" to some people around here

errr.... yes, since you want to call F4 an RPG because you expect that you will like it, apparently it does mean just that to you.

 

[DArtagnan]

errr…. yes, since you want to call F4 an RPG because you expect that you will like it, apparently it does mean just that to you.

Instead of imagining something I said - like you're incredibly fond of, let me try to make my point clearer:

I don't care about genres, I care about fun games. I don't mind if people don't consider games full of RPG elements RPGs - I just find the motivation to stop calling Fallout an RPG because it has good action amusing.

I could find it sad, I suppose, but I moved past that kind of response a while ago.

 

[Ivanwah]

The action of looking for food/water is gameplay material.
In Fall Out settings, potable water/eatable food is scarce, making easier to turn the searchfor food a relevant gameplay feature.
In Skyrim settings, water and food are everywhere. What's the point of requesting from a player to look for water when a river runs one ingame hour away from every location? In the end, it turns out as an automated action.

Yeah, makes sense. That's why mods like iNeed relied on tricks like removing food from the world. Frostfall made way more sense as a challenging gameplay element in Skyrim.

 

[rjshae]

There's too much negativity about a game that hasn't even been released yet. Much of the negativity seems to be about the game not quite matching its predecessors. Personally I'm just going to wait and see. I'm expecting I'll enjoy it, since I enjoyed the others in the series.

 

[Silver]

Also, I find it slightly comedic that people try to take away the RPG label in what seems to be an attempt to put it down, as it conflicts with their own personal preferences for the genre.

I guess RPG = "game I personally really want to play" to some people around here

To me, it's just an extremely broad category that means next to nothing, except a quick way to communicate some expected features, but even in that it will fail - as some people seem to think RPG means having bad action gameplay if there's action gameplay there.

I guess quests, character creation, attributes, progression, involved loot system, elaborate crafting system, NPC interaction, C&C, perks and so on aren't enough to make it a "good game" AKA a "true" RPG

To clarify my own opinion on fallout 4:
I think fallout 4 will be a fun game, but the focus seems very much on the action elements (from what I've seen so far). Thats not to say I don't think the game is an rpg as I actually consider a game like GTA V to be an rpg. What I'm saying is that the term rpg is so useless it is more descriptive and useful to use a term like action-adventure instead to describe it.


Some people here are annoyed by Bethesda's being tone deaf on what makes a fallout a fallout. Prioritising kill-cams and explosions over a gritty survivalist pastiche. I don't blame them for being miffed but it has been a long time now. Well Bethesda will be Bethesda and the old fallout fans are not the target audience. Better to get behind Wasteland 2 or hopefully Chris Avellone's Van Buren project (if when it happens) as they will more likely float your boat.

 

[DArtagnan]

To clarify my own opinion on fallout 4:
I think fallout 4 will be a fun game, but the focus seems very much on the action elements (from what I've seen so far). Thats not to say I don't think the game is an rpg as I actually consider a game like GTA V to be an rpg. What I'm saying is that the term rpg is so useless it is more descriptive and useful to use a term like action-adventure instead to describe it.

I don't know, as I don't think the focus seems to be on action. I mean, I've heard a lot of cool things about the housing system, the crafting system, the dialogue system and so on.

It's true that marketing campaigns, in general, tend to focus on "flash" and stuff that will get the larger crowd excited - but that goes for all AAA games. It doesn't have to mean the end result is all flash.

Some people here are annoyed by Bethesda's being tone deaf on what makes a fallout a fallout. Prioritising kill-cams and explosions over a gritty survivalist pastiche. I don't blame them for being miffed but it has been a long time now. Well Bethesda will be Bethesda and the old fallout fans are not the target audience. Better to get behind Wasteland 2 or hopefully Chris Avellone's Van Buren project (if when it happens) as they will more likely float your boat.

I guess they don't necessarily agree with YOU about what makes Fallout into a Fallout game.

Personally, I don't necessarily get too specific about what a particular game absolutely has to be. I think, for my part, the biggest part of Fallout is the setting and the scavenging gameplay. I love exploration, so I'd prefer a lot of that as well - but I don't necessarily see it as integral to the Fallout franchise.

I don't understand why having kill-cams and explosions means they're prioritising it over other things. The original game invented the Bloody Mess perk - which made the entire game into one big pile of gore. The first ones were also extremely violent and disturbing games in some ways. That doesn't mean they "focused" on those aspects either.

I think Howard and crew have done a fantastic job when it comes to the setting and the scavenging gameplay. Both are far beyond the original Fallout games - to me.

My issues with Fallout 3 were the writing, which was just plain bad and overly weird, and the usual TES-level balance/scaling, which means it was a joke in terms of challenge.

Those are huge issues - and I don't think the latter will ever be solved, because it's now a huge mainstream franchise.

But I'm not seeing any clear-cut signs of action getting more attention than the story, the setting, the crafting, the scavenging, the housing, the dialogue and so on. From what I can tell, they've worked very hard to improve a lot of these aspects.

 

[Silver]

…Personally, I don't necessarily get too specific about what a particular game absolutely has to be. I think, for my part, the biggest part of Fallout is the setting and the scavenging gameplay. I love exploration, so I'd prefer a lot of that as well - but I don't necessarily see it as integral to the Fallout franchise.

I don't understand why having kill-cams and explosions means they're prioritising it over other things. The original games invented the Bloody Mess perk - which made the entire game into one big pile of gore. They were also extremely violent and disturbing games in some ways. That doesn't mean they "focused" on those aspects either.

I think Howard and crew have done a fantastic job when it comes to the setting and the scavenging gameplay. Both are far beyond the original Fallout games - to me.

My issues with Fallout 3 were the writing, which was just plain bad and overly weird, and the usual TES-level balance/scaling, which means it was a joke in terms of challenge.

Those are huge issues - and I don't think the latter will ever be solved, because it's now a huge mainstream franchise.

But I'm not seeing any clear-cut signs of action getting more attention than the story, the setting, the crafting, the scavenging, the housing, the dialogue and so on. From what I can tell, they've worked very hard to improve a lot of these aspects.

I'm fine with playing games like Skyrim and Fallout 3 for fun but I do get misty eyed thinking about all the things they could of been.

The action parts are all over the marketing so it seems to be a Bethesda priority to me. But yes your right that is typical AAA stuff.

My cue on the story and dialogue probably being weaker comes from the introduction of voice acting and the resultant drop in in-game complexity that usually results from that decision. I like that they've added scavenging and crafting as that has been missing from rpgs for a long time. In my experience most AAA productions focus mostly on the combat. Proof is in the pudding as they say and I hope it is as improved as you hope.

 

[DArtagnan]

I'm fine with playing games like Skyrim and Fallout 3 for fun but I do get misty eyed thinking about all the things they could of been.

Oh, so do I - but I guess we want different things from these games and that's ok.

My cue on the story and dialogue probably being weaker comes from the introduction of voice acting and the resultant drop in in-game complexity that usually results from that decision. I like that they've added scavenging and crafting as that has been missing from rpgs for a long time. In my experience most AAA productions focus mostly on the combat. Proof is in the pudding as they say and I hope it is as improved as you hope.

I tend to feel more immersed and engaged when my character speaks - and I'm all about immersion and emotional attachment.

In the end, though, I find that it's rather a small part of what gets my attention. The primary part is the actual writing and how what's there is presented to me.

To me, there's no inherent aspect of a voiced or non-voiced protagonist that means the story will be better or worse. I've seen good and bad examples of both, for sure.

But I tend to trust developers to know what's the best fit for their games. Well, at least when I've enjoyed their past games as much as I have in this case.

 

[HiddenX]

I love Fallout 1&2 and have enjoyed Fallout 3 and New Vegas (with some mods), too. But I don't compare these games anymore, because Fallout 1&2 is based on very different game mechanics than Fallout 3.
So I will play (and probably enjoy) Fallout 4 and I hope we will see more original Fallout-like games in the future as well, even if there are called Van Buren or Wasteland 2.