Still like the game, even if it did not live up to expectations.

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sure, and I was very happy.

    If you know what Todd makes, you can be hyped for that, and not for what YouTubers are trying to sell it as.

    Same for Starfield; I’m incredibly excited for it, moreso than any game in years, but I know what it won’t be (amazing story, complex characters, systemic and emergent gameplay loops, etc), and can be hyped for what it will be (fallout 4 in space).

    • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      there may be a surprisingly good story in starfield, the guy who made the far harbor storyline is the lead quest designer, wil shen

  • EthanolParty@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like a bit of a hypocrite, because I’ll complain about almost every aspect of this game until I’m blue in the face, but I still put like 200+ hours into it. Same for Skyrim actually.

    • rivingtondown@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I liked Skyrim and will defend it but Fallout 4 had some inexcusable problems. I still played it and had a lot of fun once the mods rolled in but the base game is a mess in terms of story, dialogue, role-playing, balance, graphics, animations, etc…

      The settlement building was pure silly sandbox, there was no reason to engage with it, no benefit it provided, in fact it only introduced extra nuisance if you engaged (in the form of annoying settlement raid alerts). The dialogue options may have as well been nonexistent and all the skill check mechanics were stripped out in favor of the most bog basic charisma checks. The leveling and SPECIAL mechanics ended up meaning every character was exactly the same, there was no build variety past 10 or 12 hours. If you wanted to argue there was it by was only stealth or no stealth, melee or ranged, but the balance between them was fubar.

      The game was extraordinarily disappointing as someone who was a huge fan of Fallout since the original, liked 3, and loved New Vegas. FO4 was a step back in every way EXCEPT first-person shooter mechanics which wasn’t even an true aspect of the franchise.

      The one thing FO4 has going for it were mods. Like Skyrim before it, FO4 was completely reworked in multiple ways by different mods and that’s what basically saved the game for me.

    • ursakhiin@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I understand the criticism of Fallout 4 and generally agree but I don’t think the New Vegas comparison is a fair one.

      New Vegas was built on top of Fallout 3 by Obsidian. It had the benefits of a complete game needing only a few engineering changes to accommodate it. Obsidian didn’t have to spend nearly the amount of effort on assets and engine changes that Bethesda did and could put nearly everything into world building.

      • hastati@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Considering that New Vegas had a production window of 18 months, where Fallout 4’s was 7 years, I’d say it’s a fair comparison.