"Fallout 4" On 6/3/2015 at 2:37:15 PM, Ostromite started the thread:
As a huge fan of Bethesda RPGs, I am, obviously, very excited for this, but especially since it's finally moving the series to somewhere other than an empty desert wasteland.
Anyway, trailer was cool but doesn't really speak to any qualities about the game. I'm just praying it makes it out of quality control without having a million glitches.
Also Black isle should do every Fallout game IMO but oh well... I'm hoping we get something more along the lines of New Vegas than 3. 3 was still a great fun game though. Replies: 3
Msg #3: On 6/4/2015 at 12:37:24 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #2, saying: Well, it's in Boston, so it won't be a desert, and, while I'm sure it'll be a "wasteland" in the sense that it's desolated and sparsely populated, I'd guess that there will be more watery or marshy areas than previous games. It also looks like it has a greater focus on urban areas than the previous two games.
Msg #4: On 6/4/2015 at 2:27:19 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying: Excited for more Fallout. I don't really know what else to say; this looks like more of what I've come to love from the series, but nothing new. I don't know where they could take the series or where I'd like to see it go (China or Europe maybe? But then you'd lose the Americana), so more of the same is definitely welcome.
Msg #5: On 6/4/2015 at 3:33:42 AM, Narrator replied, saying: I really hope the guy talks in this one. Replies: 6
Msg #6: On 6/4/2015 at 3:49:51 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #5, saying: I hope not. Hearing a character talk kills a lot of my role-playing. If they did do that, though, I hope they also have a female counterpart. Bethesda always been great at avoiding the sexist bullshit in mainstream video games and it would really bug me if they dropped the ball with this one and locked you into playing a male character. Replies: 7, 8
Msg #7: On 6/4/2015 at 6:48:16 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #6, saying: I usually play female characters in RPG's and it's pretty standard to have both male and female options. The whole not talking thing is getting really old and it's about time Fallout had a game with more complex characters and a playable character that actually feels real, while still being able to make choices.
Msg #8: On 6/5/2015 at 12:12:59 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #6, saying: It's not sexist if the game features a male protagonist, wtf??
But I agree that it would be a bad move if they had the character talk at all. Replies: 9
Msg #9: On 6/5/2015 at 12:29:16 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #8, saying: It would be, though, because it goes against the open role-playing that has made the Elder Scrolls series and the last two Fallout games stand out in an industry that often requires players to play as a male protagonist as a matter of course. To make the decision to exclude female player characters, regardless of what practical concerns would guide them to do it, is inherently sexist because it excludes anyone who would want to play the game's narrative as a female (which is a lot of people).
Msg #10: On 6/5/2015 at 4:12:00 AM, Snake Mark replied, saying: Come now, I think Mad Max fulfilled the strong female lead requirement for the year!
When it comes to FPS RPGs, I do prefer the Silent Protagonist. Just seems to fit the whole Role Playing aspect. Tough to feel like you're actually in a role when someone else's voices is speaking for you.
Msg #11: On 6/5/2015 at 6:25:47 AM, Narrator replied, saying: I agree with ostro that It would be sexist to not include a female option in a role playing game. With the exception of a game like The Witcher, which is based on books and the specific male character Geralt, Rpg's are about making your own character, and having the option of a female character is necessary. However it's super easy to include both male and female options and still having the main character have a voice. Mass effect does it, in fact the female voice actress is much better
I'm not sure how it takes away from the role playing aspect... You still decide what is said, you control what the character does, and the story is different depending on the choices, you gain some NPC's favor while losing other's depending on what you say and how you say it. It's all the same stuff with the silent line options, except the scenes actually feel real. Fall out, and Halo have both used the excuse of "well we thought it would take away the immersion factor if the characters spoke" (Granted, fallout actually had options, while Master Chief hardly speaks ever, because they didn't want to bother making him into a character) but isn't playing an rpg all about playing a different character, emerging yourself in that character and world, rather than having a character from that world just be you. Yes, it is.
It's not the end of the world (Lol) if they don't do that, but it's gonna be what, 2017 or something when this is released? Dragon Age Inquisition lets you chose a male or female and different accents for each. They could have different tone options, Lie Here, options, etc. The witcher has a really great response choice set up that isn't so obviously (This is the douche bag thing to say, this is the nice guy thing to say) which could be incorporated. Replies: 13
Msg #12: On 6/5/2015 at 7:53:19 AM, Cameron replied, saying: When this comes out, my family will be sending search parties for me I'll be off grid so long playing it after release.
Msg #13: On 6/8/2015 at 1:16:24 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #11, saying: There are plenty of games that allow you to choose a character, customize a character, or create a character that do not allow for every conceivable race, sex, or ethnicity. It's not inherently racist/sexist/ethnocentrist if all options aren't included every time. Of course it would be a bad idea to cut one of the categories out of this series because everyone plays it, but it wouldn't necessarily be a statement of superiority over or hatred toward said category of human being.
As for voicing the player character, it's a bad idea because:
A. It separates the player from the character by another degree. Rather than the player responding to a speech prompt with the voice inside their own head, they're forced to listen to another person voice it.
and
B. It lengthens the time it takes to interact with the world. I just read my response in its entirety, I don't need to hear some jackass voice actor repeat the same thing.
I've been playing StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm lately, and while it's overall a good game, Blizzard made a lot of bad decisions when they tried to flesh the world out. Now, in order to experience the game in its entirety, I have to click on several characters and listen to their speeches in between each campaign level. Worse, I have to play what are called Evolution Missions in order to find out how new units work. Even starting a skirmish against the computer is unnecessarily complicated; I have to download each map from Blizzard first, and everything defaults to an online mode.
All of these are tiny changes - as voiced player characters in Fallout/Elder Scrolls would be - but they bloat the non-value added time I'm in the game immensely. Hell, it can be easily argued that Morrowind's non-voice acted NPC interactions were, from a gameplay standpoint, infinitely superior to anything from Oblivion, Fallout 3, or beyond. Replies: 14, 15, 22
Msg #14: On 6/8/2015 at 2:03:18 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #13, saying: It doesn't matter if Bethesda removed playable female characters out of hate or bigotry or even flippant dismissal. What matters is the result: a series that has always welcomed players to pursue the narrative outside the sexual mores and gender norms of most video games and society at large (read this essay to get a sense of what I'm talking about). Even if they did it for the most innocent of reasons (i.e. they could only reasonably work with one voice actor for such a sprawling game), the result is the same.
Now, of course, I'm talking as if this were a confirmed fact about the game, and it's not. The truth is that Bethesda has always been one of the most progressive and accepting video game developers and, even if they did this, I wouldn't think they were misogynists. I would just be disappointed that they made a misogynistic game, and so would a lot of people I know.
Msg #15: On 6/8/2015 at 4:36:56 AM, Snake Mark replied to Msg #13, saying: "A. It separates the player from the character by another degree. Rather than the player responding to a speech prompt with the voice inside their own head, they're forced to listen to another person voice it."
Wow... it sounds so much better when you say it.
....
Msg #16: On 6/8/2015 at 4:51:46 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: I don't really care if Fallout 4 has a voice actor/actress or not... but if Mass Effect didn't have voice acting it would be far less entertaining. Mass Effect has less of a role playing focus than Elder Scrolls and Fallout though. Replies: 17
Msg #17: On 6/8/2015 at 6:19:18 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #16, saying: Mass Effect is about playing as Commander Shepard, who, regardless of how you play them, is always a fairly consistent character. That's why you can play as a renegade through the whole game but then pick a paragon option just for laughs and it will still pretty much make sense in the story. That's why it's technically a role-playing game but not really about role-playing. The Elder Scrolls and Fallout have always been about crafting your character more or less from scratch the way you do in tabletop RPGs, and that's why Trainwreck's saying that voice acting would kind of ruin the experience for a lot of veterans. Replies: 18, 20
Msg #18: On 6/9/2015 at 1:36:47 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #17, saying: yeah... except in a game like Dragon Age inquisition, it's about playing the inquisitor, who can be a dwarf, a human, an elf, or a qunari and all have entirely different ways of doing things, and thinking. There's no consistency between how one person can play and another, different inquisitors can be completely and utterly different, sharing only the title inquisitor, just like "vault dweller" or "the courier" In fact, since every vault dweller has the exact same life, living in a vault and they all have the same father, they're much more similar than the game would like to admit.
Having a voice doesn't, at all, take away from building a character, and that excuse is bullshit. The fall out and skyrim games don't bother to do it for the same reason they don't bother to make a decent story. They make the game mostly about the side quests, which are all unrelated and, especially in skyrim, kind of ridiculous. Becoming the leader of the thieves guild, the werewolves, the assassins guild, etc really makes it hard to forget that it's a stupid video game that caters to the fantasies of being in charge, rather than something with an interesting, moving story and characters you care about. It turns out you can have a bunch of side quests, and create a unique character while also having complex characters, consequences that last, and feel real, and a non mute playable character Replies: 19
Msg #19: On 6/9/2015 at 2:05:31 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #18, saying: Role-playing games don't tell stories, they let you create stories. That's the whole point. If you don't think that's good enough or you think it constantly reminds you that you're playing a game and isn't emotionally satisfying, that's fine. A lot of people don't like RPGs for that reason. You can't just pin the problem on Bethesda and say that they're lazy when you're arguing against the fundamentals of the entire genre. Replies: 23
Msg #20: On 6/9/2015 at 3:14:57 AM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #17, saying: Yeah this whole post was on the same page as my last sentence.
And good point with the last post. RPGs just play differently and cater to different tastes. If you don't like it, that doesn't mean it is wrong or bad.
I agree with Rocky that the main questlines in Fallout 3 and the Elder Scrolls games are pretty bland.
New Vegas however is one of the best main quest driven RPGs of all time. Rocky, if you haven't played it you really should.. even though it is not voiced, it is much better than any other Bethesda game (since it's basically NOT a Bethesda game lol... it's a Black Isle game) in how you can "create your own story" and influence the game world and the amount of player choice is incredible. There is a bit of a power fantasy element to it but it's not a bad thing. Replies: 21
Msg #21: On 6/9/2015 at 3:18:11 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #20, saying: Yeah this whole post was on the same page as my last sentence
Yeah, I agree with you, I was just elaborating.
Fallout: New Vegas is actually my favorite RPG of all time.
Msg #22: On 6/9/2015 at 3:40:47 PM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #13, saying: As resident SC super fan, the in between missions during the campaign of Wings of Liberty is fantastic. However Heart of the Swarm was released rushed, and unfinished, and with some overall shit work behind it, so the campaign while starting good turns to shit about 1/3 of the way through.
The online only aspect of the game is shit, you're right about that.
Msg #23: On 6/10/2015 at 5:51:36 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #19, saying: Not really, rpg's like fallout 3 and skyrim have set stories. Being the dragon born, or purifying the water and finding your dad. They allow you to make choices, and influence the story in one direction or another, but you don't tell your own story. The thing about those games is that the story is bland, and the sidequests are isolated and self contained being pretty inconsequential to the rest of the game. What I look for in an rpg isn't just choices and an open world, it's choices with consequences, that close doors to other options, open other paths and have effects on other aspects
New Vegas did this really well, despite not having a voice actor who had companion characters with decent stories, and you got to play a political game with the different factions, but you couldn't simply become the head of ceasars legion, the ruler of new vegas, the head of the brother hood of steel and the leader of the freeside people, you got to talk to them, work for all of them, trick them etc but your choices actually mattered. Something that dragon age and mass effect do much better than fallout 3 or skyrim.
and I don't know if you ever played Mass Effect Ostro, but you're not correct when you say "you can be mostly paragon and then have a renegade choice just for the lulz" One shepard can be completely different from another. The only thing that ties all the possible characters together is the goal of defeating the reapers, and depending on how you play it, shepard feels completely different. Replies: 24
Msg #24: On 6/10/2015 at 6:11:09 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #23, saying: Not really, rpg's like fallout 3 and skyrim have set stories. Being the dragon born, or purifying the water and finding your dad. They allow you to make choices, and influence the story in one direction or another, but you don't tell your own story.
Your character is your own, and the order in which you choose to do the quests does construct a different story. Also, even though nobody ever actually does this because everyone wants to crush the game as a max-level demi-god, Elder Scrolls games are designed so that you can play through the game completely and skip entire quest lines, leaving them for a second play through. If you think it breaks your immersion to be the leader of both the Dark Brotherhood and the Companions, then only do one and not the other. That decision is what molds the story.
You might say that you're just ignoring content at that point and that forcing you to play through the game a second time is bullshit, which is fair enough, but they have to make a compromise somewhere. Besides, replaying the first half hour of the game isn't a big deal at all, and I can speak from personal experience that starting over as a new character just to play new side quest lines is more fun than doing everything as one super-character. It all depends on what kind of experience you want, though.
What I look for in an rpg isn't just choices and an open world, it's choices with consequences, that close doors to other options, open other paths and have effects on other aspects
This is something that Bethesda goes up and down on in quality, but I would also say that part of the appeal of their games is exploring a world where you're not able to change things all that much, a realistic, believable place that feels like it wasn't made simply for the player to play in it. Now, obviously, that's at odds with the themes of the main story campaigns a lot of the time, but it's practically impossible to create a compelling central story where the player can make many meaningful decisions that alter the course of the story and have a massive, richly detailed open world. There are simply too many things going on, too many variables and possible combinations of events.
I don't know if you ever played Mass Effect Ostro, but you're not correct when you say "you can be mostly paragon and then have a renegade choice just for the lulz" One shepard can be completely different from another.
Not really, not in any way that matters. They act different, almost comically so, but the two extremes still feel like logical flip-sides of the same basic personality. Renegade Shepard is still basically a good guy, and Paragon Shepard still kills people all the time. It's not a problem with the game, it's just a different way to compromise the limitations of the game narrative with the player's desire to role-play. Replies: 25
Msg #25: On 6/10/2015 at 10:12:18 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #24, saying: " If you think it breaks your immersion to be the leader of both the Dark Brotherhood and the Companions, then only do one and not the other. That decision is what molds the story. "
But the fact that you can do both is ridiculous. Choices need to have actual consequences, and running two high level time consuming, country spanning organizations at the same time with no conflict of interest is stupid.
"a realistic, believable place that feels like it wasn't made simply for the player to play in it."
This is one of the things I want, but it choices don't need to have huge consequences to have them. In real life, and mass effect, dragon age, new vegas, choices force conflict of interest. You need to make tradeoffs and sacrifices. Giving you the ability to "mold a story" by choosing to only do the dark brotherhood in one play through, or the dark brotherhood and the thieves guild, or all of them is what is unrealistic.
" Renegade Shepard is still basically a good guy, and Paragon Shepard still kills people all the time. It's not a problem with the game, it's just a different way to compromise the limitations of the game narrative with the player's desire to role-play."
Though sometimes people have strict paragon/renegade shepards, it's rarely the case that people do. Most people end up with a mix of paragon and renegade scores it's not the scores themselves that make the character different, it's where you make the choices you make. Replies: 26
Msg #26: On 6/10/2015 at 3:47:49 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #25, saying: But the fact that you can do both is ridiculous.
What you're saying is, basically, that if, say, you want to join the Dark Brotherhood, you should get locked out of the Thieves Guild. That makes sense in theory, but the truth is that so many people want to be able to do both that Bethesda could never make the games that way without angering a lot of their hardcore fans.
In real life, and mass effect, dragon age, new vegas, choices force conflict of interest. You need to make tradeoffs and sacrifices.
Again, that's true, in theory (though I don't agree that it's as prominent in BioWare RPGs as you think it is), and I agree in so much that I want that kind of experience out of RPGs, too, but, like I said earlier, a lot of the appeal of Bethesda's games is exploring the game world and trying to find everything there is to do in it and doing it. Also, I do think that Bethesda wants to do the kind of stuff you're talking about (Obsidian did it in New Vegas and Bethesda tinkered with it in Skyrim with the Stormcloak rebellion), but they have to put so much work into these gigantic game worlds that I don't think they have enough time or manpower to do it. It's not just a matter of writing the game story that way; you have to text all the possible tree paths for player decisions and make sure there isn't a huge bug if you decide to do This, get locked out of That, and can't complete The Other Thing. Leaving it so that all the separate quest lines are independent of one another allows them to make a bigger game, even if it sacrifices some of the richness of a more focused narrative.
Though sometimes people have strict paragon/renegade shepards, it's rarely the case that people do. Most people end up with a mix of paragon and renegade scores it's not the scores themselves that make the character different, it's where you make the choices you make.
I don't buy this. Once you realize that you basically need to always do Paragon or always do Renegade in order to max out your score in one or the other to unlock the charm points and massive upgrades, you stick with one through the entire game, regardless of what makes the most sense from a character perspective. That's the fundamental problem with all morality systems in video games. And, if you didn't do this, if you picked which ones made the most sense from a character perspective, then you're exercising the same kind of player agency I was talking about in Skyrim for someone who deliberately avoids certain quest lines: in both cases, you're choosing to not do what will directly benefit you from a gameplay perspective in order to create a more immersive role-playing experience for yourself. The difference is that Mass Effect has a smaller, more streamlined world where you can do this while still completing every mission, whereas Skyrim would require you to play multiple times with multiple characters. Replies: 27, 28
Msg #27: On 6/10/2015 at 11:20:44 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #26, saying: That's kinda funny considering I had Shep with full renegade bar and half paragon in my playthrough as renegade Shep?
Msg #28: On 6/10/2015 at 11:37:14 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #26, saying: "Once you realize that you basically need to always do Paragon or always do Renegade in order to max out your score in one or the other to unlock the charm points and massive upgrades, you stick with one through the entire game, r"
but you don't need to do that at all. There is exactly one thing I know of that requires full renegade with little or no paragon and that is a special side mission in mass effect 1 that's fun but inconsequential Replies: 29
Msg #29: On 6/10/2015 at 11:41:33 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #28, saying: The gameplay passively encourages you to. Replies: 32
Msg #30: On 6/13/2015 at 7:33:02 AM, Cameron replied, saying: At the same time in Mass Effect if you do half one half other it means you're either a confused dude or desperately trying to play people, and you won't get as far as if you're genuine in regards to how people react to you and percieve you, which is fairly realistic, I wouldn't go along with a known two faced asshole.
I would hate it if you couldn't do both Brotherhood and Companions haha, sometimes you can't spent the time to start a new game and sink that kind of hours into it over and over just to experience all the stuff. Replies: 31
Msg #31: On 6/13/2015 at 8:13:34 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #30, saying: That's not really true, either. Being renegade or paragon isn't straight forward, and like real people, shepard can have a soft spot in some areas and be a hard ass in others.
Renegade is also not synonomous with being selfish, mean, or evil. In fact some renegade options are the more moral options. For instance, in Mass Effect 2, there's a Quarian on pilgramage in Omega and he's trying to sell all he can to get back to the fleet, but an elcor continually undercuts him. In order to help him you can do two things, strong arm the elcor to sell at a more expensive price, so the quarian gets a fair chance. This is the paragon option and seems like the good guy thing to do, standing up to the jerk. Or the renegade option is to convince the elcor to buy the quarian out of business, and it seems like a shady messed up thing to do, but in reality it helps the quarian more to do that then the paragon rout.
As for not being able to do both brotherhood and companions because of not being able to get everything out of it... well that's yet another shortcoming on the part of the game makers. in DA:I you can log over 100 hours and not do half of the things possible, while being locked out of other missions because of choosing a different path.
Msg #32: On 6/13/2015 at 4:51:05 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #29, saying: No it doesn't. You just think it does because that was how you played it. Replies: 33
Msg #33: On 6/13/2015 at 5:05:40 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #32, saying: Whenever a game rewards you with direct upgrades for doing something, it encourages you to do that thing. It's really not even debatable.
Msg #34: On 6/14/2015 at 9:25:50 AM, Snake Mark replied, saying: Every game that I can think of with a morality meter encourages you to play it one of two way. There isn't typically an award for being a mish-mosh of the two; in fact, you actually don't get the full experience of either side by being in the middle.
You can play it that way should you want, but you're missing out on entire aspects of the game by not going to either extreme. It's actually quite obnoxious that there isn't a "middle ground" that makes not being entirely "evil" or "good" actually worth doing.
And you can pick a female character. Replies: 36
Msg #36: On 6/15/2015 at 1:55:29 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #35, saying: The new weapon customization looks off the hook. I know I'm just going to end up with a double-barreled laser rifle with a big ass scope like I always do, but damn:
Looks pretty impressive so far. Love ING the customization.
Doom footage was also revealed. Not as excited for that. Replies: 38
Msg #38: On 6/15/2015 at 4:25:02 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #37, saying: I'm excited for Doom because as an FPS fan I'm sick of these milsim shooters that are slow as fuck and all about catering to the casual with easy to shoot guns. Hopefully Doom's multiplayer has some skillful weapons. Replies: 39
Msg #39: On 6/15/2015 at 4:40:28 PM, Snake Mark replied to Msg #38, saying: The pacing looks amazing for a Doom game, better than 3, but I'm not digging the art style entirely.
Something about the (I'm assuming) Cyber-Demon looked way too much like a World of WarCraft character.
Also, as much as I knew what the weapon line-up would be, I'm a little miffed the initial gameplay reveals were so quick to show off seemingly everything.
