Betheseda MIGHT be learning from there mistakes

[Jogre]

So, as we all know, Bethesda really messed up with Fallout 3, and that's just unavoidable, the game will forever be cannon. Because of this, the series may not ever be able to fully recover, but that doesn't mean that Fallout 4 will be bad. Looking at what we learnt already, FO4 looks like Bethesda may be working on some of our criticisms last time(I will demonstrate below), granted they may be making some, minor mistakes already, especially concerning dialogue, but I genuinely believe they are getting better.

What I theorize is that Bethesda does genuinely care about what we fans of the older games have to say, but they aren't too aware of what we want as fans. I reckon, that if after every Bethesda release, instead of being overly critical of them, we directly contact them telling them what they did wrong. We should be firm about our wishes, but not insulting towards them, kind of like in the way that you train a hyperactive dog.

So anyway, here is a list of ways that I think they may be learning from there mistakes

Farming: Fallout 3 had nowhere near enough farms to provide food for an entire wasteland, however looking at the concept art there is some clear evidence of farming.

Endings: Its already confirmed that there will be "8 endings between the two characters", so that shows some signs that there will be at least some alternate endings. Hopefully, it may be like the Four Alternate Endings in Fallout New Vegas, where each one branches out in to the endings of individual towns.

Everything looking too dead for 200 years after the war: Well lets face it, Fallout 4 is definitely better with this. There are OK trees, and some grass here and there, and it looks nowhere near as post apocalyptic as 3.

Being Forced in to sides: This isn't as common a criticism of some others, but still some people seemed annoyed that you could only side with the Brotherhood and not the Enclave(Even though nobody in the right mind would side with Enclave, but you should still have the choice.), The Steam description of Fallout 4 mentions "Join multiple factions vying for power, or go at it alone.", that means that even if you don't choose a side, you can still complete the game on your own.

This is really all we can learn from it right now, but my hopes are high for Fallout 4. Again, I don't think it will be anywhere near perfect, bu I reckon that if we are direct enough, we could perhaps create a Golden Age of Bethesda Fallout games. It's going to be a slow process, But I think we can even improve Bethesda's Fallout Games.

 

[Serifan]

I'm not sure how to respond to something so fucking stupid.

 

[Severite]

I would argue that starting with the premise that a conglomerate business full of adults are likely to end up being insulted if you start out with the assumption that they are like a hyperactive dog. I imagine the cannontation will ooze through regardless of your 'intent'. Otherwise, sharing your thoughts, letting them know how tou feel, without making it an assault, is actually probably the best course of action to *possibly* get a game we all* (I use this term loosely, I promise), actually want. I enjoyed FO3, but it totally failed as an RPG. It was, however, utterly fun to play, and tearing apart the most hideous aspects and rebuilding them into something decent, improved the quality by like 4 times. Oblivion was even worse, which needed a complete rip out of the leveling system, and removal of the scaling. Skyrim just needed a complete perk redesign, but the core system was ok, and FONV, was was iirc, just about fine on its own when it came to leveling (yes, I know Obsidian made that one).

With all of that said..... I am much less interested in the gameplay elements as long as they are fun, and gets the game across to my grubby hands, then I am with them providing believable player agency. THAT would be a real gem, and THE thing that brought me to fall in love with FO1/FO2 in the first place.

 

[Severite]

I'm not sure how to respond to something so fucking stupid.

I appologize if this comes across as a double post, but I posted my comment, and then saw this message.

I would say by providing criticism by stating WHY you found it to be a stupid fucking idea. Or what aspects you found to be absolutely stupid, and, where you would have gone in that vein, at this point, Im not even sure what your interests ARE. Do you like FO4 as is, and it cant be improved? That its so terrible that there can be no improvement, or, possibly that Bethesda may or may not ever make a good game, but they certainly will never listen to us?

I lurked for a VERY long time, before finally getting around to getting what the site admin considered a REAL email address, and going ahead and joining. Then lurked for a while, but havnt really been back for almsot 4-5 years, so I have only the vaguest notions who is who, or what interests any individual members may have. Pretty much I remember Killap, and Brother None, and thats about it. I imagine I am not the only one who has no idea who you are, or what you think about any given topic.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It's simply stupid because it is silly. First, it is not our task to lecture Bethesda, a professional company with experienced developers about what or what isn't Fallout (or any franchise really). The information by the way, is really not THAT difficult to get your hands on. I mean hell, you could always start with the countless Fallout wikies out there. Their job is it to find the required source material and to get them self used with the content and concepts.

And I am pretty confident that is what they did, definetly before they decided to post here years ago. They knew perfectly well what Fallout is and what Fallout isnt. And they still went trough with their vision - which is the TES formula applied on Fallout, rather than making a Fallout game that is a worthy successor to the first 2 games.

I believe they simply tested the waters years ago, to see how readily NMA could be incorporated in their marketing/online strategies. But that is just a wild guess. They definetly decided very fast to pretty much ignore everything that is NMA. And we can live with that. Not like we have much of a choice anyway. I mean there is New Vegas after all. And there are also still the old games.

What I theorize is that Bethesda does genuinely care about what we fans of the older games have to say, but they aren't too aware of what we want as fans. I reckon, that if after every Bethesda release, instead of being overly critical of them, we directly contact them telling them what they did wrong. We should be firm about our wishes, but not insulting towards them.

You mean ... like the situation before Fallout 3 was in full development when a few F3 developers actually posted here on NMA? We had this already.

The game and Fallout have been discussed in a very polite and non-hostile manner, with Todd, Emil and I think Pete. NMA didn't became cynical or bitter or what, ever over night, and most of the posters here welcomed them. At least from what I recall.

The now more negative opinion about Bethesda simply happend because people realized that saying "We want to make a true Sequel!" has no merrit, once you realize that they made with Fallout 3 a spiritual successor to Oblivion. And not to Fallout 1 and 2. This is where the concept of "Oblivion with gunz" was born. And I still remember that some of the Fallout 3 developers defended their idea, saying that it will not be Oblivion with guns, again they want to make a true sequel to Fallout and all that. After the gaming press at some point described this Oblivion with guns as positive change they feelt pretty fine with it though. I remember that much from watching an interview of Todd Howard with a gaming journalist.

Many here gave Bethesda the benefit of the doubt, even when quite a few forum users voiced criticial opinions and using Oblivion as example. But we didn't tolerated any troling or agressive behaviour against any of the Fallout developers. But there is only so much bullshit you can take before you start to become cynical about it. There was quite a lengthy post which mentioned not only Oblivion but also one of the Star Trek games published by Bethesda and their role in development, that Todd Howard worked on a Terminator First Person Shooter (Future Schock) and how much influence it might have on the development. Turns out, Fallout 3 is closer to a first person shooter than a top down turn based RPG. And it seems Fallout 4 will be even MORE of an FPS than Fallout 3. Go figure!

The truth is boy, Bethesda knows EXTREMLY well what they are doing. And they're doing it on purpose. Everything of it.

Why? Because 30 million of casual gamers (and I do not use that as offense!) could care less about what Fallout really is, and just want to buy the next block buster game where they can kill stuff from their couch after work/school. And in Bethesdas opinion (I guess) you can not sell a niche game that just a handfull of people would like to 30 million gamers out there. Bethesda is designing Mc Donalds Burgers. They are to role playing games what Tacco Bell is to Mexican food.

That's why you see dumbed down combat mechanics, removing of skill checks in dialog, quests or combat, dumbing down of the writing, extreme use of tropes and cliches, simplyfing the plot and narrative. Everything is extremly straight forward. From the story, to the quests and writing/dialog. And that is not an accidant or poor communication between Bethesda and it's fans - hint, WE are not their fans. They do it, because they want to sell it that way.

 

[samturret]

I wouldn't describe the dialogue system as a ''minor mistake''.

 

[Severite]

It's simply stupid because it is silly.((sniped))

Thank you for your response, it was an excelllent explanantion, I was unaware that BethDevs had posted here, and while I remember absolute vitriol aimed at them for changing the core gameplay mechanic, I dont remember much dialouge, as a whole, minus a few here and there.

I am curious though sir, is it the move away from the isometric top down view, or is it the theft and somewhat soulless way, (superficial? Hmmm) that the world reacts to the things we choose to do, and the ginormous stack, and lore shifts? I agree with you wholeheartedly in at least one aspect, FO3 is not a RPG, so much as a theme park, as another poster put it.

With that said, I will agree that while it is not our job to lecture Bethesda (I agree with you), telling them the things that we want cant be a bad thing. I am personally hoping that it will rubberband back into more meaningful interactions, and agency. It is possible that that is as a whole wishful thinking.

I admit, I am less interested in what form the combat system is in, and much more focused on a change in ideology on what RPG's are. I mean, look at what you can do as the vault dweller/chosen one, the options for solving various "problems", and the way the world reacts to you. And the fact that every creature ever, can indeed die.

 

[Askorti]

Bethesda knows full well what we want. And they don't care, because what we want is not what their fanbase wants. People around here want good, complex mechanics, deep and thought-provoking writing, good quality dialogue and believable characters among other things. The shooty-smashy part of the game is not particularly important. This is a complete opposite of what Bethfans want. They only want to look at pretty sights and whack enemies, shoot at monsters and gather forks and alarm clocks.

This is why there will be no real dialogue between NMA and Bethesda, because they have their vision of fallout and people around here have theirs. Those two are like day and night.

The only chance to get a good Fallout game is to pray that Obsidian makes one, because Bethesda will never make one.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It's simply stupid because it is silly.((sniped))

Thank you for your response, it was an excelllent explanantion, I was unaware that BethDevs had posted here, and while I remember absolute vitriol aimed at them for changing the core gameplay mechanic, I dont remember much dialouge, as a whole, minus a few here and there.

I am curious though sir, is it the move away from the isometric top down view, or is it the theft and somewhat soulless way, (superficial? Hmmm) that the world reacts to the things we choose to do, and the ginormous stack, and lore shifts? I agree with you wholeheartedly in at least one aspect, FO3 is not a RPG, so much as a theme park, as another poster put it.

With that said, I will agree that while it is not our job to lecture Bethesda (I agree with you), telling them the things that we want cant be a bad thing. I am personally hoping that it will rubberband back into more meaningful interactions, and agency. It is possible that that is as a whole wishful thinking.

I admit, I am less interested in what form the combat system is in, and much more focused on a change in ideology on what RPG's are. I mean, look at what you can do as the vault dweller/chosen one, the options for solving various "problems", and the way the world reacts to you. And the fact that every creature ever, can indeed die.

Well, I think the vitriol was somewhat to be expected though. I can not stress this enough, a lot of people gave them the benefit of the doubt for a couple of months, despite of Oblivion. A lot of us even frequently posted at the Bethesda forum discussing the game and the changes. The reall antipathy developed over time the more informations became available, and the more interviews sheed light on Bethesdas design. You know, things like "violence is fucking funny" just don't work so well when you feel that the game is becoming a mindless shooter. And when we talked about trivializing nuclear weapons becuse of the Fatman and exploding cares we were simply ridiculed.

It really is not the move from ISO/Turn-Based to FPS-Real time alone. It is that barely anything in Fallout 3 is really an improvement over F2, except for the graphics I guess, but so much is a given, any game made today would be proably one way or another in 3D and high quality graphic, no matter if top down or FPS. But when it comes to quests, NPCs, narrative and even gameplay (see skills) F3 was a step backward and one direction closer to mindless killing.

With that said, I will agree that while it is not our job to lecture Bethesda (I agree with you), telling them the things that we want cant be a bad thing.

If they are willing to listen - which I doubt at this point - but, this was also done. However, the points have been either ignored or waved asside with the notion that we should not worry, since they want to make a true Sequel. What we got was Fallout 3 in the end. So yeah ... so much to that listening part.

 

[berlin1945]

B might have addressed some shallow complaints, but they did a lot to fuck up the deep stuff even more.

they opened a tab about how fallout 3 got it wrong and only read the first three bullets.

then their eyes glazed over, and they thought up a bunch of new ways to be shitty and called it fallout 4.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Bethesda are always learning from their mistakes (and successes); but what they see as mistakes (and often as success), can be polar opposite to the design and intents of the Fallout series. They are not making Fallout games, they are making variant flavors of TES, because that's what their market buys.

 

[Walpknut]

Bethesda has indeed learned a bit from their mistakes, from what we have seen in the Leak Streams. But they took so many steps backwards in so many other aspects that the good they have done is extremely outweighed by the bad.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Bethesda has indeed learned a bit from their mistakes, from what we have seen in the Leak Streams. But they took so many steps backwards in so many other aspects that the good they have done is extremely outweighed by the bad.

One cannot expect anything else... I mean, what can you do when one half-heartedly speculates that they must actually be striving to create a fauning 'yes-man' product... and then they come out an confirm it on stage ~to applause. It's pathetic; unjust, and damaging.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I feel the one who learned the most is their marketing department. Compare their adds and campaigns from Oblivion, to Fallout 3, Skyrim and now F4. With each release they have shown less and less informations about their games, outside of generic combat situations. And I think that has a reason, those that remember Oblivion and what they shown on the E3 probably know what I am talking about. Even though their games sell usually like crazy, I still tend to believe that it must still bother a designer and/or developer when a quite large group of people reacts negatively.

 

[generalissimofurioso]

I think they realized that the less they show off, the less people will call them out on bullshitting the audience.

 

[Askorti]

It's simple, the less they say, the less they have to lie, the less ammunition we have against their BS.

 

[Practicat]

I was thinking they could have made a better Fallout game than the Fallout 4 we got that even the so-called casual fanbase and people would fawn over. I believe such is the case for some of the following reasons:

They could have worked on the traditional dialogue system, done away with the super mutants and BoS in Boston, kept the father-son relationship to some sidequests, kept skills and even added in traits and ammo types, and people would be just as hyped, if not more so.

Thus, I think how the story and mechanics in Fallout 4 are are largely because Bethesda has a flawed perception of what people want from Fallout. This is besides what I think is Bethesda's lack of understanding of the core spirit of Fallout storywise, which also contributed to the state of their Fallout games but not as much.

 

[Dr Fallout]

I was thinking they could have made a better Fallout game than the Fallout 4 we got that even the so-called casual fanbase and people would fawn over. I believe such is the case for some of the following reasons:

They could have worked on the traditional dialogue system, done away with the super mutants and BoS in Boston, kept the father-son relationship to some sidequests, kept skills and even added in traits and ammo types, and people would be just as hyped, if not more so.

Thus, I think how the story and mechanics in Fallout 4 are are largely because Bethesda has a flawed perception of what people want from Fallout. This is besides what I think is Bethesda's lack of understanding of the core spirit of Fallout storywise, which also contributed to the state of their Fallout games but not as much.

Flawed? No, they know EXACTLY what they're doing.

 

[Severite]

Im just glad that its easily modible. Pretty much every game based on Bethesda's engine requires heavy modding to make it into a really fun game. Heck, Oblivion was utterly unplayable, and FO3 made my soul ache, but with mods, while it still wasnt perfect, at least it was fun. Maybe that IS what Bethesda decided to do, pffft, those guys are hard, whatever, make it easy modible, and they can make it whatever they want. Assuredly, their rabid fanbase isnt really based on non modified games after 7 years

 

[Urthor]

If we're going to level criticism at Bethesda, at this point it's fairly pointless to criticise them for having a wildly different vision about what an RPG is to Fallout 2's. The horse has bolted, Robert Altman and Zenimax, arugably the best run business unit in the games industry, grabbed the brand and ran with it and if we're honest, rewarded and touched far more people than Fallout 1 & 2 ever did by leveraging Bethesda's audience.

The thing is, Bethesda are getting things wrong that conflict with the ideal vision of their platform, as well as NMA's, there's an absolute overlap between what their audience demands and what NMA's demands. Dialogue for one, also the prose and micro quality of writing, and arguably the expansive themes and ideas that were present in Obsidian's writing but really absent in FO3. It's too early to criticise the plotline/prose reallly, from the leaks it looks like they're borrowed touches from New Vegas, but nothing like enough to judge them.

Point is, rather than descending into the split sided discussion, with one side as the isometric turn based grognards, and the other as the Bethesda sell out Call of Duty ring ins, better for both sides to crucify the 3 choice dialogue system and all the consequences it entails, as well as the other details that matter to both. There's no point yearning after a 90s bus that's left you behind.