Imagine thinking Starfield will be good with how fricking shit FO4 was.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Imagine thinking Starfield will be good with how fricking shit FO4 was.
Imagine thinking Starfield will be good with how fricking shit FO4 was.
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>todd's magnum opus
yep im thinking its kino, actually
Todd is not an indication of quality
Todd is an indication of if you see it you can go there
You can see White Gold Tower in Skyrim but you can't go there.
Bullshit that you can see it.
You can see it from certain mountaintops and by rotating the map screen
You can see a low-LOD model of the tower
You can. Not sure you can normally rotate the map this much in vanilla but it's all there. Morrowind is also visible, Red Mountain and all. Technically you should be able to see all this outside of the map as well if you properly disabled LoD, maxed out distance and flew way up into the air to see over the mountains.
Not sure who designed the map for Skyrim but they put in a fair amount of unneeded (but appreciated) effort. I'd love to see a highly detailed 3D map of all of Tamriel. Funnily enough the closest I've seen is an enormous Minecraft map although since we haven't had games in certain areas, not everything is fleshed out.
Why is FF 16 universally praised for getting rid of all RPG mechanics and turning the game into an action game but FO4 was generally panned for doing something similar, but not nearly as drastic? FO4 turned the game into a much better FPS than FO3 and NV were and still kept plenty of RPG mechanics, just simplified them.
I've been asking the same thing. I suppose the answer is something in the lines of "there's so many FF games that they should experiment at least sometimes". -But previously FF has made "subtitle" games when it deviated some. "Dirge of Cerberus" is a spin-off, because it doesn't play like a JRPG.
Because the appeal of FF was never the gameplay and there are a billion other series to play if you like that genre anyway. Meanwhile Fallout 4 got rid of the only things the series was good for: character builds and writing. And the gameplay still isn't even good.
>and writing
I am pretty sure Bethesda botched the writing as early as in FO3, so that's nothing new, because holy shit, Bethesda can't write. FO4 had this weird tryhard feel to it, when Bethesda thought they are better writers than Obsidian, because NV makes Todd salty to this day, and... no, they aren't.
Final fantasy fans are gays who will eat up any slop square enix puts in front of them as long as it has spiky anime hair.
FF fans are stupid
FO4 was good though.
Fallout 4 was pretty ok (better than Skyrim), and the stuff that sucked in it has been addressed (voiced protag, dialogue wheel), and the guy who wrote far harbor is lead writer, so hopefully the shitty story as well.
FRICK I'm so HYPED, I don't know how I'll be able to remain in my PANTS for two more months
>the guy who wrote far harbor is lead writer
Yeah, because Emil got promoted to director.
>Yeah, because Emil got promoted to director.
Yea, but design director sounds like a more managerial position, where he pats people on the head, ensures that designs by different devs are coherent with each other, and that everything is running smoothly, stuff like that.
I could be wrong and he has a more active hand in development than ever before, but ya gotta have hope.
you just wanted to post your qt
Name a good game
everyone with an IQ above room temp is wondering
"how good of a mod platform will this game be?"
that's it. base aesthetic for SF looks neato and space is the #1 modding autism sink after fantasy. it's also basically the same engine again, again (again) so less effort to learn new systems
fallout 4 unmodded is lacking in depth but its still good. ive been itching for a new playthrough actually
Imagine thinking Fallout 4 was shit in particular like a zoomer when all of their games after Morrowind were shit
Those games are fun when modded. Bethesda's open world RPGs are frameworks for mods and this time we have 1000 planets and spaceships and space bases and crew and shit to mod.
Fallout 4 is shit because it isn't a Fallout game. Starfield has no such expectations. It can't fail to be something it's supposed to be. It can't sell its own soul to reach an audience other than the one it established. It can be anything it wants. It won't be as bad as Fallout 4.
>Starfield has no such expectations
>It can be anything it wants
It'll be a Bethesda game where they somehow find a way to strip away features/mechanics that were in all of their previous games and simplifying whatever is left over. Mods mite b cool tho.
I don't think that's fair. Some design isn't even compatible between fantasy and sci-fi. Bethesda made hockey games at some point. Are Elder Scrolls games somehow worse products because they neglected to bring in design from those games? I think that when you make a sequel to your own franchises, you have absolutely no excuse to strip away design that works. You're supposed to fix the things that don't and make even better the things that do. That's why TES sucks. Ever since Morrowind there has been less addition than there has been subtraction. Making a new franchise altogether like Starfield means that you can establish a new baseline. You can then predict whether they build on that baseline, or if they do what they always do, which is to tear is apart in consecutive installments little by little until there is nothing but a Skyrim-shaped husk.
It might not be a fair assessment but it's the one that they've earned. If Starfield ends up being an exception to the mold that they've been constructing for themselves that would be great, but there's no evidence to support that kind of expectation.
>Fallout 4 is shit because it isn't a Fallout game. Starfield has no such expectations
FO4 is shit because it's held up against previous Bethesda games, which it's sorely lacking against.
Same with Starfield. You won't be able to play it without noticing all the gameplay elements they've scrapped or dumbed down in comparison to previous Beth games.
You can't exactly hold it against Starfield that it doesn't have the same stamina and mana regeneration mechanics as Daggerfall. You can't hold it against Starfield if it doesn't accurately replicate the crit table and body-part targeted combat system of Fallout 2. I hate Bethesda for making so-called Fallout sequels that don't have the things that Fallout needs to have. Bethesda can completely freely define what a Starfield game needs to have.
>Fallout 2
>Bethesda game
Excuse me?
And while it should've been obvious, I'm talking about mechanics from previous titles that would fit into Starfield's world.
Instead, you'll get +10% poison resistance, and you're gonna love it.
>Fallout 2
>Bethesda game
>Excuse me?
I think you're confusing ME with YOU, which is a Ganker first as far as I know. You're the one holding Bethesda games to the standard of Bethesda games. I hold sequels to the standards of their predecessors. I don't give a frick what Starfield has, because there isn't a previous game in the series for Bethesda to ignore the design of. I did care what Fallout has, Bethesda failed to deliver the basics of what it needs to have, and they doubled down on their mistakes in the second sequel they made.
>fails to address original point so just invents new perspective to address things from
(You)
No, even originally I disagreed with the idea that Bethesda games should be held up against Bethesda games. I think a sequel should be an improvement. Regardless of who made the previous game. I think Fallout 3 and 4 are bad games because they didn't do what Fallout 2 did but better. They failed. Starfield has no predecessor, so it has none of the expectations that games such as Fallout 4 failed to meet.
That should be the only fricking way you play you cretious FO3 secondary. The real-time shooting in 3d Fallout should be reserved entirely for untargeted shots that take less AP. Your character's ability and luck should determine whether or not they hit, not you.
Just being a Bethesda game it has a lot of expectations. Even if it's not a TES or Fallout game, people still expect a lot of the same things from it.
>worldbuilding
>RPG elements
>loot
>exploration
>dialogue interactions
>"choices matter"
>perks and skills
>build variety
Bethesda has definitely put some effort into hyping people up but they've clearly been trying to do so in a way that doesn't set a lot of specific expectations. They've really only shown the basics that it's in space, you make a character, have the opportunity to specialize in certain skillsets and explore a bunch of planets while some kind of main plot is going on. All of these things are the fundamental building blocks of Bethesda games so there's definitely some standards there but it's still all very vague because it's a new IP.
You forgot modding
It is LITERALLY unacceptable for a Bethesda game to not feature mod support. People threw a ginormous shitfit over FO4 for having issues with them in fact
Just so you know, if Starfield turns out to be the next Cyberpunk, don't come crying here because you fell for obvious media hype.
Todd always overhypes his games.
>Starfield turns out to be a great game with a bit of a rocky launch
How terrible
Cyberpunk also had expectations that it failed to meet, just like Fallout 4. You don't make a "Game XXX2" as a sequel to "Game XXX1" and just make it into a totally different experience without even trying to capture a fraction of the original's true design. Sure, a videogame sequel to a PnP RPG is literally impossible, but you can get a lot closer than a cinematic story-driven action game. Cyberpunk 2077 should have been "Cyberpunk: Silverhand" or something. The original game is called Cyberpunk 2020. There is no excuse for a Cyberpunk 20XX to be less of a game than that one is. And as it stands, it's literally infinitely less of a game.
Fallout 4 is a good game and I don't particularly care what Ganker thinks. It's certainly better than New Vegas, a game that loves to pretend to give you choice, and apparently this is enough for brainlets.
>It's certainly better than New Vegas
By what metric?
New Vegas shits on 4 when it comes to writing, quests, worldbuilding, roleplaying ability, weapon realism, and overall consistency.
>when it comes to writing, quests
Not really. New Vegas jumps the gun into stupid territory multiple times. Its final expansion is literally referred to by Ganker as Reddit World Blues.
>roleplaying ability
The only real. roleplaying advantage it has are the lack of voice and Straight/Gay perks.
>weapon realism
Too bad that without mods the weapons are even jankier than Fallout 3's because Obsidian forgot to make sure the ironsights were aligned properly on half the guns.
>Not really
Yes, really. Are you a philistine? Do you not read books so that you have a frame of reference? Doesn't seem like it.
Old World Blues is fine, and fits into the OG Fallout vibe. And it's only pajeets who call it that.
>The only real roleplaying advantage it has are the lack of voice and Straight/Gay perks
Blatantly untrue. You have a multitude of ways to handle quests and general interactions. And you have so many viable builds that you never get bored. The simple fact that you can kill everyone except Yes Man goes to show this, whereas in Todd games they need to make NPC's essential to keep morons from softlocking themselves out of finishing the game.
>Obsidian forgot to make sure the ironsights were aligned properly on half the guns
Ridiculous hyperbole. Besides, what I'm talking about is that the guns actually seem like guns, whereas Bethesda "guns" are fricking moronic. FO3's combat shotgun, FO4's assault rifle, etc.
>you can kill everyone except Yes Man
You can kill Yes Man as well, but the game gives you a decent enough in-story excuse as to why you can't kill him permenently. The only npc you CAN'T kill is that Gun Runners bot, because there is a wall built around it.
I mean, yes. But my point still stands.
You really should play New Vegas first before you start spouting off Ganker shitpost "arguments".
>Obsidian forgot to make sure the ironsights were aligned
That's less egregious than the fact that Obsidian didn't fix the combat that Bethesda broke. Enemies don't make probability judgments or combat rolls. Enemies have infinite ammo and spam attacks that have little chance of hitting from a range. Projectiles and throwables fly through simulated trajectories instead of attack success being determined by skill, luck, range and environment based rolls. Melee VATS can't target body parts. Level geometry can interrupt a successful roll after the roll has been made as the target moves outside its turn without permission to take cover. Movement takes no action points. Multi-layered critical roll chances for each individual body part don't exist at all. Statuses such as combat knockouts and critical fails don't exist at all. You can't even aim at eyes or the groin.
Complaining about iron sights means that you don't care about the combat at all. You're acquiescing to what Bethesda broke and Obsidian didn't fix, then criticizing Obsidian not properly supporting Bethesda's mistake.
>this homie plays with VATS
[BRAND] is a good [BRAND] and I dont care what [Insert Adverse Group] thinks!
you're right. fallout 4s world is iconic. the dark blue nights, the creepy run down factories. it fricking RULES
>have to dump seventeen (17) levels worth of perk points into crafting in order to unlock everything
4 for Blacksmith, 4 for Armorer, 4 for Gun Nut, 4 for Science, and 1 for Local Leader to build the crafting benches.
What the FRICK were they thinking?
The Fallout 4 protagonist is a grunt (established backstory is another one of Bethesda's mistakes). It makes perfect sense for someone like that to have to get massive amounts of educational experience for them to somehow become a virtuoso of mechanical engineering. Complaining that you need 17 levels before your character can make literally everything in existence is going really, really deep into Bethesda's anti-RPG rectum. In a real RPG, you would actually have to specc into your character being an engineer to make them good at engineering, and they would not become good at other things. In Daggerfall, only one of your skills can become maximized. Only two others can get very high. Only 5 others can be high, and the rest can never be high. -Because a character should never be good at everything and they should be the peerless masters of almost nothing.
>you would actually have to specc into your character being an engineer to make them good at engineering
But that would be cool, though. Make gun mods more purchasable/lootable than they are so you have a way of getting them without speccing into engineering, and you'd have good RPG mechanics.
>FO4
>fricking shit
It actually managed to get some joy from me unlike Skyrim so I see no reason to not.
Say what you may about the lore though but as a game? It was decent. The engine was properly used like the FPS its supposed to be, dialog was properly voiced like a god damn multimillion dollar budget 3d game should be,the story was much more focused and walking around was actually kind of pleasant because you had the radio.
Todd learns. Although yeah its probably gonna be a buggy mess on release. Thats how all modern 3d games are sadly.
>Todd learns
Body type 1/2 begs to differ
Weird looking dude.
Are you intentionally making him supposed to look like a troony or something?