Fallout 4 - Was it really worth the Hype? @ Techpipe

Originally Posted by rune_74
I don't discuss things with you because you aren't really discussing anything as your previous posts have shown. However, it's not just that I liked it obviously, I had a lot of fun with a lot of the features as I have discussed before for which I don't have to defend liking it to the likes of you….but to have sanctimonious posters such as yourself spouting complete bull might be what comes across as elitist snobs, it has nothing to do with this being an RPG website(Note not a rpg specialist website hahaha wtf). Been here a long time, seen your type come and go, usually back to the codex.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. It just seems like manic ranting :shrug: no-one's asking you to defend anything, no-one's attacking you, you chose to join a conversation, no-one forced you to, and you're not adding anything apart from… whatever that stuff is.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. It just seems like manic ranting :shrug: no-one's asking you to defend anything, no-one's attacking you, you chose to join a conversation, no-one forced you to, and you're not adding anything apart from… whatever that stuff is.

The only people who seem to add anything are people that agree with you, got it.

Completely weak as usual.

Originally Posted by joxer
My problem is not indie vs AAA or vice versa

I agree with this. I don't tend to base my judgements on whether something is high budget or medium or low, but I would expect more than just graphical improvement from bigger budgets. In terms of engaging content I think all types of budget can provide that, it's just more disappointing when the bigger budgets fail in this regard, because it makes me feel more ripped-off.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
Don't listen to any of the trolls here. Some people simply can't appreciate the beauty of Bethesda storytelling.

Ehh the beauty in Bethesda's story telling is increasingly in their environmental story telling. The vignettes you discover by exploring and paying attention to some of the more carefully crafted places in fallout 3 and 4 are some of the best stuff in those games. I really appreciate that so many of these places are between marked locations rather than on obvious points of interest and are more likely to be found by you saying "I wonder what's in there" or something catching your eye than running from point to point as in many previous Bethesda titles.

The main plot and even most side quests, while better in 4 than 3, hasn't been where I've felt they've excelled at all. While they've also done a way better job making interesting characters in this one than in 3 or even Skyrim, they pale in comparison to the best characters in Witcher 3 or Bioware games. Then again they have given at least a touch of personality to far *more* characters in FO4 than in almost any western RPG I can think of.

It's not a mind blowing experience and it doesn't quite grab me the way Witcher 3 did at times. I do like it quite a bit though and there are things in it that Bethesda has never done better - some because they're excellently done and some because they're things Bethesda has never really seemed to get right. To me, it's worth the price of admission even if maybe it wasn't worth the largely fan generated aspects of the hype train leading up to it (remember, Bethesda themselves didn't really do a huge long marketing campaign leading up to it and largely let fans and speculating journalists do that for them for free until they announced.

Originally Posted by rune_74
The only people who seem to add anything are people that agree with you, got it.

Completely weak as usual.

You're actually lying now. I regularly reward good points from opposing views that add solid opinions to discussions. Perhaps you need some moderation? calm down somewhere for a bit?

Originally Posted by lackblogger
You're actually lying now. I regularly reward good points from opposing views that add solid opinions to discussions. Perhaps you need some moderation? calm down somewhere for a bit?

I'm lying….really.

Whatever.

You know it isn't that you have a different view, it's that you have a condescending tone to the posts, like you have in your responses to me.

You are more then welcome to report my posts if I hurt your feelings in this.

Regardless your deflection hasn't changed my opinion that the game is good. To me it is better then new vegas was which isn't a popular opinion around here. I generally felt the world was better placed together. It isn't the greatest of rpg of all time, and I don't see anyone saying that it is….but the few in here that talk like it is horrible and isn't really an rpg just sound silly.

For instance this one guy went on and on that it's just purely a shooter, clearly never playing the game and stating that his view was right…well pure gibberish to be honest.

It's a solid game at the end of the day, worthy of my play time.

You just wrote a huge diatribe about everything apart from the game, again. The only 'content' in your post was: "I generally felt the world was better placed together [than NV]." Well, wow, ok then, that's clear and informative isn't it. I'm glad you liked the game, it's good when things make people happy

Originally Posted by lackblogger
You just wrote a huge diatribe about everything apart from the game, again. The only 'content' in your post was: "I generally felt the world was better placed together [than NV]." Well, wow, ok then, that's clear and informative isn't it. I'm glad you liked the game, it's good when things make people happy

Condescending. I wrote more then that, you just decided to ignore it.

Sorry if you feel that way. It's not meant to be.

I think Dartagnan has secretly trained a Sith apprentice…

You think Rune is Dartagan's alt?

I'd have to say that no it wasn't worth the hype but very few games are.

I liked the game (exploring and fighting were done very well) but now it looks like I may not finish it as I'm a story guy and the story has just fizzled out for me. I haven't played in over a week and still have no urge to jump in and finish it. Hopefully I jump back in one cold and rainy weekend and see how it ends.

Seriously, this is totally unrelated but I laughed my ass off when I saw how "trains" in FO3 operated.

Originally Posted by Emerwyn

but it's yet another Bethesda game that I won't see its ending because of how dull and redundant it is, and because of how poorly written is its storyline.

It is another Bethesda game, yet one that breaks with Bethesda's traditional way of dealing with certain elements.
The most important factor brought by FO4 as it begets the question to know whether this is a mistep or a new orientation.

Bethesda changed things not for the best.

Among other things, the way of dealing with the narrative. Bethesda's games were not about scripted stories, they were about allowing players to craft their own narrative.

One traditional piece was to provide the player with a blank character. This was broken by providing the player with a PC with an associated background. All of this treated poorly.

Skyrim introductive sequence immediately sparks the eagerness of blending a PC, with a self determined background, into the gameworld.

FO4 introduction is out of phase, it traps the player in a PC's past, that failed to bring to life a PC but yet still comes in the way of the player's efforts to design his own.

In the end, players with expectations of finding a scripted story cant find it as it was the usual.
But, this time, players with the expectations of finding a ground to build up their narrative, cant find it as the design keeps interfering with their efforts.

It is another Bethesda game, one that is different from the previous jobs. One that gave up on formulae that work to adopt new formulae that do not work.