I think the base system was them taking a very popular MOD for FO3/NV and making a homage to it. The RTS MOD was great for a later play through where you're not focused on the story.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The reviews are coming in a bit higher than I expected, considering the typical Bethesda bugs. However, with that much freedom there are bound to be glitches. The combat improvements are what interest me nearly as much as the story itself.
I actually think I am one of the few people who could not really get into The Witcher 3. I loved the first one but the second and third one just....eh. Not sure what it is
I wanted to like it, but the game runs like utter garbage. Nothing kills immersion more than having to turn the graphics down to PS2 quality and still getting choppy game play.
I'll pick this up when the GOTY package is inevitably released. I'm done buying games on release day only to see them on sale two months later for half price.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
I actually think I am one of the few people who could not really get into The Witcher 3. I loved the first one but the second and third one just....eh. Not sure what it is
I wanted to like it, but the game runs like utter garbage. Nothing kills immersion more than having to turn the graphics down to PS2 quality and still getting choppy game play.
I'll pick this up when the GOTY package is inevitably released. I'm done buying games on release day only to see them on sale two months later for half price.
My biggest reservation is how modding is going to turn out.
I am waiting to see if its modding is "Full steam ahead". (Interpret that pun however you want)
I have every Fallout game in my Steam LIbrary and I have yet to install even the original. So is it worth doing a marathon gaming event and starting with original and working up to Fallout 4? I gather it really is the same game just improved so might not be worth going back to experience the original.
Unlike a previous poster, I prefer the medieval setting over the post-apocalyptic. Love the Elder Scrolls type games but maybe this deserves a try.
My problem with F3 and F:NV is pretty much, that they are (actually bad) shooters with some neaty RPG tacked on. Looks like F4 is still taking that road. Damn, give me back those Fallout 1 and 2 days
"As good" is hard to quantify. Less polished, but arguably better in some respects. Where Witcher 3 is tops at story-telling, Fallout 4 does the open world sandboxy thing far better in my eyes.
II understand there is no formal definition of what a sandbox game and a theme-park game is, however, How does open world translate to sandboxy? Oblivion?, FONV? Skyrim? These games aren't sandboxy in anyway that I understand a sandbox to be (Minecraft). The stories are as on rails as they come. Even then, the open world is really an illusion created by multiple distinct but shorter story that are loosely tied together, if at all, that you can drop and pick up when you want.....even then, there are limits. Within each story, you can follow the content on rails, or you can move on to one of the other stories on rails.
I was just playing Skyrim yesterday, I had the quest to go talk to the Jarl of Whiterun to trap a dragon. I haven't done that, because I know that I either need to call the truce in the war or complete the war ark. This is not optional. So, I decided to drop the main quest and pick up in the civil war and complete that. Only I can't complete that because the Emperor's cousin is getting married, so I now have to Stop the Civil War Ark, to advance the Dark Brotherhood Ark so that I can get back to the Civil War Ark so that I can get back to the Dragonborn Ark. As I have said before....What If I don't want to be a Werewolf to complete the Companions Ark? What If I think Empire and Ulfric are equally bad for Skyrim and want a different "High King"? You don't have a choice there. Even the main story will stop for dfferent arks atcertain points. The sandboxiest extent Skyrim gets is choosing which predefined wing you want to add to your Hearthfires manor.
I can only assume that FO4 will have a similar story structure. And given so, How is this sandboxy?
I agree I don't really consider them to be sandboxes, yet to say the open world is an illusion is just kind of odd.. The open world is open. Go where you want do what you want. Can't get much more open world than that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
My problem with F3 and F:NV is pretty much, that they are (actually bad) shooters with some neaty RPG tacked on. Looks like F4 is still taking that road. Damn, give me back those Fallout 1 and 2 days
I agree I don't really consider them to be sandboxes, yet to say the open world is an illusion is just kind of odd.. The open world is open. Go where you want do what you want. Can't get much more open world than that.
Because It's not really that open. Sure, I can go anywhere I want, when I want. But that's true in many traditional Theme Parks too. I mean yeah, you may or may not survive, but you aren't prevented from going there, what makes the world open is the content that is there. And Bethesda content is locked down within the individual stories.
The difference is that instead of having one massive story line, that breadcrumbs you all the way through, they make a game with many short stories that you can rotate through as you want. But each story is just a mini version of what games with 1 main story offer. If you read my post, I gave examples of where this open world isn't really open and my game was absolutely set on rails for me.
I'm glad to hear that every niche of real estate has a purpose. I was playing Fallout 3 again this week in preparation for FO 4, and while it holds up fairly well, I was surprised at the amount of absolute nothing that exists in the game. Entire sections of the map can be devoid of any thing...except terrain. No Easter eggs, no wandering npcs...nothing. It really killed my desire to jump on rocks for 15 minutes to reach that one overhanging ledge, only to discover it empty. Skyrim was good at putting little things in obscure places.
Anyway, I hope FO4 is a bit more like Skyrim in this regard.
I have every Fallout game in my Steam LIbrary and I have yet to install even the original. So is it worth doing a marathon gaming event and starting with original and working up to Fallout 4? I gather it really is the same game just improved so might not be worth going back to experience the original.
Unlike a previous poster, I prefer the medieval setting over the post-apocalyptic. Love the Elder Scrolls type games but maybe this deserves a try.
no, if you like rpgs, playing the first fallout and then the second will spoil the whole fallout 3 thing, if you jsut like FPS games you can keep playing fall out3 and NV
btw calling fallout 4 a rpg you are kinda pushing its a fps with some stats, hell even deus ex have more rpg on it then this game
I dont trust anyone who give Bethesda vanilla games high scores.
Bethesda has some of the best story telling and game concepts in the industry. But from a technical perspective, they are butchers. They are their own worst hacks. It's people like Arthmoor who make their stuff actually work.
I agree with the open world comment, nothing within the world changes without me starting or finishing an ark. Open world is a world that exists without me and I make my way in it not a world in a frozen state waiting for me to interact with it.
I agree with the open world comment, nothing within the world changes without me starting or finishing an ark. Open world is a world that exists without me and I make my way in it not a world in a frozen state waiting for me to interact with it.
I'd have to disagree about the Open World part.
I put about 160 hours into Skyrim and probably only completed about 25% of the main story. It was really easy to just roam around and make my own fun. I did complete the odd side story here and there, but to this day I haven't come close to finishing the main story.
One thing that told me these games are not Sandboxes is that I wanted to assassinate the rebel leader in Skyrim. I snuck up to his bedchamber and waited... The guy came in and I attacked him, got his health bar all the way down to zero and he would not die, I could have fought him through eternity.
These games are definitely Open World, but they are definitely not Sandboxes.
I agree with the open world comment, nothing within the world changes without me starting or finishing an ark. Open world is a world that exists without me and I make my way in it not a world in a frozen state waiting for me to interact with it.
I'd have to disagree about the Open World part.
I put about 160 hours into Skyrim and probably only completed about 25% of the main story. It was really easy to just roam around and make my own fun. I did complete the odd side story here and there, but to this day I haven't come close to finishing the main story.
One thing that told me these games are not Sandboxes is that I wanted to assassinate the rebel leader in Skyrim. I snuck up to his bedchamber and waited... The guy came in and I attacked him, got his health bar all the way down to zero and he would not die, I could have fought him through eternity.
These games are definitely Open World, but they are definitely not Sandboxes.
What you probably don't realize is that much of the content you think of as "open world" exploration areas are actually tied to a story somewhere. I believe one such quest line is starts in Solitude, you are asked to douse the Solitude Light House. It ends in squaring off against the bandit leader in the grotto under Solitude. That Grotto doesn't re-spawn mobs, ever. If you clear it out before getting the quest, I don't think you can ever get that quest. Otherwise, many of the "open world" content is put there for radiant questing, so you can keep getting quests from factions after completing the stories. Meaning, you are doing your future "dailies" a little early.
Great year for open world games, Xenoblade X is next which is bigger than both witcher 3 and fallout 4. Theres also Mad Max too. Cant wait to play fallout 4 though.
Some people are just too hung-up on strict definitions of terms like "open world" or "sandbox" which are, after all, just approximations useful only in comparing games.
If you want to use the terms in the strictest possible way, there can never be a sandbox with any kind of quest or story other than the ones you dream up yourself, nor can there be an open world with boundaries of any kind.
When Bill says that Fallout 4 does the "open world sandboxy thing" better than The Witcher 3, I know exactly what he means and I agree with him... and neither of those two has to be an absolute strict open world sandbox for the comparison to have meaning.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Some people are just too hung-up on strict definitions of terms like "open world" or "sandbox" which are, after all, just approximations useful only in comparing games.
If you want to use the terms in the strictest possible way, there can never be a sandbox with any kind of quest or story other than the ones you dream up yourself, nor can there be an open world with boundaries of any kind.
When Bill says that Fallout 4 does the "open world sandboxy thing" better than The Witcher 3, I know exactly what he means and I agree with him... and neither of those two has to be an absolute strict open world sandbox for the comparison to have meaning.
I'm glad you knew what he was talking about. But someone who never played any Witcher title, wouldn't have your frame of reference though. So, that's where at least some degree of accuracy in descriptions are needed.
Some people are just too hung-up on strict definitions of terms like "open world" or "sandbox" which are, after all, just approximations useful only in comparing games.
If you want to use the terms in the strictest possible way, there can never be a sandbox with any kind of quest or story other than the ones you dream up yourself, nor can there be an open world with boundaries of any kind.
When Bill says that Fallout 4 does the "open world sandboxy thing" better than The Witcher 3, I know exactly what he means and I agree with him... and neither of those two has to be an absolute strict open world sandbox for the comparison to have meaning.
I'm glad you knew what he was talking about. But someone who never played any Witcher title, wouldn't have your frame of reference though. So, that's where at least some degree of accuracy in descriptions are needed.
It'd be nice if sandbox and open world were accurate terms that convey the same idea to everyone. Unfortunately, they aren't. No need to have played either game to get the gist of the meaning, albeit your own subjective gist
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
I am waiting to see if its modding is "Full steam ahead".
(Interpret that pun however you want)
Hodor!
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The difference is that instead of having one massive story line, that breadcrumbs you all the way through, they make a game with many short stories that you can rotate through as you want. But each story is just a mini version of what games with 1 main story offer. If you read my post, I gave examples of where this open world isn't really open and my game was absolutely set on rails for me.
Items bought
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I put about 160 hours into Skyrim and probably only completed about 25% of the main story. It was really easy to just roam around and make my own fun. I did complete the odd side story here and there, but to this day I haven't come close to finishing the main story.
One thing that told me these games are not Sandboxes is that I wanted to assassinate the rebel leader in Skyrim. I snuck up to his bedchamber and waited... The guy came in and I attacked him, got his health bar all the way down to zero and he would not die, I could have fought him through eternity.
These games are definitely Open World, but they are definitely not Sandboxes.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
If you want to use the terms in the strictest possible way, there can never be a sandbox with any kind of quest or story other than the ones you dream up yourself, nor can there be an open world with boundaries of any kind.
When Bill says that Fallout 4 does the "open world sandboxy thing" better than The Witcher 3, I know exactly what he means and I agree with him... and neither of those two has to be an absolute strict open world sandbox for the comparison to have meaning.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED