OFFICIAL Fallout 4 (Discussion)

[Mussels]

i think they've just decided making the specs higher serves three purposes:


1. It keeps complaints about performance to a minimum (upgrade your PC! the box says so!)
2. it makes people happier when it runs on lower specs than advertised.
3. wiggle room for DLC/patches/expansions hurting performance (see blizzard games, the requirements on the box have got nothing to do with the current game)

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

...
3. wiggle room for DLC/patches/expansions hurting performance (see blizzard games, the requirements on the box have got nothing to do with the current game)

I'm shocked! Someone blatantly stating that a Bethesda release might be a steaming pile of bugs and poor performance. Is that even possible?



Seriously though, I agree. Bethesda is hedging their bets with "minimum" specifications to cover for their poor optimization and generally poor release quality. I'd doubt if the game actually makes full use of 6 GB when it's running properly. Even then, setting down some of the eye candy will likely make the game playable on a system much less substantial than the one they cite as a minimum.

 

[Mussels]

i highly think we're gunna get a polished engine this time around.

scripting bugs and glitches? hell yeah, its half the fun and guaranteed with anything of this scope - but with any luck the engines gunna be polished and perform well. i really hope they surprise us with a DX12 patch at some point as well, that'd sure up the hype around the game to new levels.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

i highly think we're gunna get a polished engine this time around.

scripting bugs and glitches? hell yeah, its half the fun and guaranteed with anything of this scope - but with any luck the engines gunna be polished and perform well. i really hope they surprise us with a DX12 patch at some point as well, that'd sure up the hype around the game to new levels.

I remember hearing the same thing with Skyrim.

Instead of a polished game we had a string of bug fixes that took quite a long time to slow. I'd hazard it wasn't just poor scripting, because backwards flying dragons and mammoth launching isn't scripting (should I understand the point you're aiming at correctly, if not please correct me).

This is why I can't understand why people would pre-order the game. Bethesda's QA is demonstrably crap, and it's taken them four years to release their next game off of the exact same engine they touted in 2011. The best game Zenimax has released, in the last decade, was by Obsidian. That requires repeating....

 

[Mussels]

yeah but look at how skyrim fared over the years - you can play it now with ease and graphics way beyond what hardware of the time was capable of. the UI is what holds that game back, or they'd still be releasing expansions for it today.

oh and those fun physics bugs could be fixed by locking the game to 59FPS, no joke it was actually an engine bug about 60+FPS, and some monitors freaked it out (59Hz over HDMI, for example)

 

[rooivalk]

Instead of a polished game we had a string of bug fixes that took quite a long time to slow. I'd hazard it wasn't just poor scripting, because backwards flying dragons and mammoth launching isn't scripting (should I understand the point you're aiming at correctly, if not please correct me).

Idk, most bugs either not really game breaking or could be solved with console, some even quite amusing.
For me I don't fret over something trivial like that. But hey, maybe you like everything to be immersively smooth like movie.

Also in my experience, meanwhile you got almost-bug-free game after 4 years (and cheaper price of course), many good mods would be already disappear into thin air.
In case of Skyrim there're plenty of 'missing' mods from occasional east asian modders, from dead links in the cloud, or some people that got banned in Nexus and don't come back.

Since few months ago I retrace back from Morrowind, Oblivion and then Skyrim, doing almost every quest available (except radiant) and have no trouble doing it.
Granted it's the latest version but still it's without the much touted Community-could-do-better-fixing-their-game-than-Bethesda unofficial patches.

Another merit of buying early is the hype lol. It's more immersive to play while people still talk about it.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Idk, most bugs either not really game breaking or could be solved with console, some even quite amusing.
For me I don't fret over something trivial like that. But hey, maybe you like everything to be immersively smooth like movie.

Also in my experience, meanwhile you got almost-bug-free game after 4 years (and cheaper price of course), many good mods would be already disappear into thin air.
In case of Skyrim there're plenty of 'missing' mods from occasional east asian modders, from dead links in the cloud, or some people that got banned in Nexus and don't come back.

Since few months ago I retrace back from Morrowind, Oblivion and then Skyrim, doing almost every quest available (except radiant) and have no trouble doing it.
Granted it's the latest version but still it's without the much touted Community-could-do-better-fixing-their-game-than-Bethesda unofficial patches.

Another merit of buying early is the hype lol. It's more immersive to play while people still talk about it.

?

I'm going to guess at your points here, so if the guesses aren't accurate please correct me.

1) You can fix the game via console.
Not acceptable. This is an admission that the game itself is fundamentally broken. I don't expect a cinematic experience from games, what I expect is to not have to have a second monitor open to a wiki page throughout an entire play through, just to get the thing working as intended. Bethesda requires I do this, so their efforts are unacceptable. I require this for every other game, so allowing Bethesda to get by means I don't think they can meet those standards. I think not, as Obsidian proved the ashes of Fallout 3 could be constructed into a great game, should the effort be put forward.

2) Mods disappear when a game is "good enough" at release.
Crap. You cite modders falling off the face of the planet, and I'll cite the opposite. System Shock 2 got patches and development from the community a decade after the developers went under. It isn't a great game now, but it was the peak of a new genre when it came out. Truly great games receive community support for a long time. Mediocre games get support until they are surpassed. This is why Fallout 3 has less mods than Fallout: New Vegas.

3) Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim are playable now.
Yes. They were also very playable when they released. At the same time, the only one of them made in the last decade was Oblivion, and only just barely. A decade ago we didn't have constant patching, and games released with bugs didn't get fixed unless there was an expansion. You put on some rosy glasses about the past, but the more recent past has proven otherwise. Gaming is never about what was 20 years ago, it's always about the last 5 years. In the last 5 years consumers have accepted buggy releases, under the auspices of massive bug stomping. That's crap. If we accepted the same for cars the huge recalls wouldn't be a news item, but daily life. Grocery stores would take our money for food a week before we wanted it, and whatever we got would be acceptable. That's crap, because not holding this industry to some standards, while being willing to throw money at them, is killing quality.

4) Hype is part of buying the game early
On day 1 you'll have reviews. On day 1 you'll have let's players streaming the crap out of the game. On day 2 somebody will have blitzed through the story line and spoiled the ending. By the end of week 1 the wiki will contain enough information to allow people to play the game, and the console commands required to fix all of the broken stuff. By the end of month 1 the entire game will be documented, and the hard core fans will be salivating over whatever DLC can be thrown at them. By the time the majority of early adopters finish the game they'll release the GECK (or whatever the editor will be called). A month later a stream of quality user generated mods will exist, in parallel with the official Bethesda DLC. Choose where you want to get on that hype train. I'm looking forward to getting on the last car, the GOTY is compiled and the experience is "complete." I don't have to wade through bugs, I don't have to be drip fed content, and if the game is broken Bethesda doesn't hold me hostage. I'm supposed to be a consumer, not sheeple. Grow some spine, and decide to be one yourself. If you can't show some modicum of self control any bug complaints you have can be dismissed as a poor sheep not liking the wood used to construct their cage. Hype is getting people to fork over their money, without having a good product.

 

[rooivalk]

First, sorry I didn't mean to force my opinion to change your 'standards' if that's what you implied. I simply express my point of view to your 'standards'.

So my opinion remains: I think you prefer butter smooth experience. You don't accept this and that. You want everything presented to you effortlessly even if you said you don't.
You're okay with waiting for months for 'complete experience'. Totally nothing wrong with that. It's your life. But then why lurk and rant on not-yet-released game thread?

If you want to be driving force for better quality games through, that's a commendable effort, but I'm afraid it's futile. You'll better be applying for QA position in Bethesda.

1) You can fix the game via console.

In my last playthrough for 3 games from 3 decades ~100% completion, it's 0 need for console. It's just an option to do so.
IIRC in old my playthrough (AKA when there's no GOTY yet), I only ever use console for quest on Skyrim's Esbern mission.
It's simply stuck actor problem (Reloading probably help, but I'm lazy).

Also If you don't have two monitors you could alt-tabbing or use mobile browser.

2) Mods disappear when a game is "good enough" at release.

No, I didn't mean as if mods or community as a whole are getting endangered, but quite few nice mods 'missing' on the net with only trace of the screenshots or some dead links remain behind. I felt this when I played 3 elder scrolls in 2015 even the relatively newer Skyrim. My only option is to beg to somebody in certain fans forum that has the file to reupload it.

3) Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim are playable now.
Yes. They were also very playable when they released. At the same time, the only one of them made in the last decade was Oblivion, and only just barely. A decade ago we didn't have constant patching, and games released with bugs didn't get fixed unless there was an expansion. You put on some rosy glasses about the past, but the more recent past has proven otherwise. Gaming is never about what was 20 years ago, it's always about the last 5 years. In the last 5 years consumers have accepted buggy releases, under the auspices of massive bug stomping. That's crap. If we accepted the same for cars the huge recalls wouldn't be a news item, but daily life. Grocery stores would take our money for food a week before we wanted it, and whatever we got would be acceptable. That's crap, because not holding this industry to some standards, while being willing to throw money at them, is killing quality.

I think this is difficult to prove if you're talking entire game trend. But maybe we should remember a lot of older games are either technically simpler or unbalanced and nobody complaints relentlessly like today.
Beside aren't you contradict yourself? You said people have accepted buggy releases lately but you also said 10 years ago game with bugs didn't get fixed unless the same company asking for more product buying. What 10 years ago people did beside accepting it?

Also about cars, I think it's similar on different scale. Currently there's plenty of recalls being made 'for potential problem' that haven't yet arising or non-conclusive like having glue that could burn at very rare situation, I think that's pretty similar with constant patching. Meanwhile old Porsche 996 with infamous IMS problem is free from 'patching'.

4) Hype is part of buying the game early
On day 1 you'll have reviews. On day 1 you'll have let's players streaming the crap out of the game. On day 2 somebody will have blitzed through the story line and spoiled the ending. By the end of week 1 the wiki will contain enough information to allow people to play the game, and the console commands required to fix all of the broken stuff. By the end of month 1 the entire game will be documented, and the hard core fans will be salivating over whatever DLC can be thrown at them. By the time the majority of early adopters finish the game they'll release the GECK (or whatever the editor will be called). A month later a stream of quality user generated mods will exist, in parallel with the official Bethesda DLC. Choose where you want to get on that hype train. I'm looking forward to getting on the last car, the GOTY is compiled and the experience is "complete." I don't have to wade through bugs, I don't have to be drip fed content, and if the game is broken Bethesda doesn't hold me hostage. I'm supposed to be a consumer, not sheeple. Grow some spine, and decide to be one yourself. If you can't show some modicum of self control any bug complaints you have can be dismissed as a poor sheep not liking the wood used to construct their cage. Hype is getting people to fork over their money, without having a good product.

Soo 2 months on average then? Worry not, I dislike watching streams (including TPU one to be honest), never use any mods or walkthrough on 1st playthrough. I probably need few months to complete it all (I'm pretty dilligent at sweeping entire area). I simply immerse myself with whatever available, and so far I haven't disappointed.

You don't like playing with friends and other players alike? even for chit chat since it's single player experience? That's my point.

 

[erocker]

For the sake of a more balanced discussion... "This game looks neat-o! Can't wait to play it!"

 

[AsRock]

So many conspiracy theories.

For the sake of a more balanced discussion... "This game looks neat-o! Can't wait to play it!"

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

First, sorry I didn't mean to force my opinion to change your 'standards' if that's what you implied. I simply express my point of view to your 'standards'.

So my opinion remains: I think you prefer butter smooth experience. You don't accept this and that. You want everything presented to you effortlessly even if you said you don't.
You're okay with waiting for months for 'complete experience'. Totally nothing wrong with that. It's your life. But then why lurk and rant on not-yet-released game thread?

If you want to be driving force for better quality games through, that's a commendable effort, but I'm afraid it's futile. You'll better be applying for QA position in Bethesda.


In my last playthrough for 3 games from 3 decades ~100% completion, it's 0 need for console. It's just an option to do so.
IIRC in old my playthrough (AKA when there's no GOTY yet), I only ever use console for quest on Skyrim's Esbern mission.
It's simply stuck actor problem (Reloading probably help, but I'm lazy).

Also If you don't have two monitors you could alt-tabbing or use mobile browser.


No, I didn't mean as if mods or community as a whole are getting endangered, but quite few nice mods 'missing' on the net with only trace of the screenshots or some dead links remain behind. I felt this when I played 3 elder scrolls in 2015 even the relatively newer Skyrim. My only option is to beg to somebody in certain fans forum that has the file to reupload it.


I think this is difficult to prove if you're talking entire game trend. But maybe we should remember a lot of older games are either technically simpler or unbalanced and nobody complaints relentlessly like today.
Beside aren't you contradict yourself? You said people have accepted buggy releases lately but you also said 10 years ago game with bugs didn't get fixed unless the same company asking for more product buying. What 10 years ago people did beside accepting it?

Also about cars, I think it's similar on different scale. Currently there's plenty of recalls being made 'for potential problem' that haven't yet arising or non-conclusive like having glue that could burn at very rare situation, I think that's pretty similar with constant patching. Meanwhile old Porsche 996 with infamous IMS problem is free from 'patching'.


Soo 2 months on average then? Worry not, I dislike watching streams (including TPU one to be honest), never use any mods or walkthrough on 1st playthrough. I probably need few months to complete it all (I'm pretty dilligent at sweeping entire area). I simply immerse myself with whatever available, and so far I haven't disappointed.

You don't like playing with friends and other players alike? even for chit chat since it's single player experience? That's my point.

I'll chalk this up to different standards, and hopefully we can amicably end it there. It's unlikely we'll ever come to a more satisfactory conclusion than that.


Edit:
Removed part of the response. In retrospect it sounded passive aggressive.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I remember hearing the same thing with Skyrim.

Instead of a polished game we had a string of bug fixes that took quite a long time to slow. I'd hazard it wasn't just poor scripting, because backwards flying dragons and mammoth launching isn't scripting (should I understand the point you're aiming at correctly, if not please correct me).

This is why I can't understand why people would pre-order the game. Bethesda's QA is demonstrably crap, and it's taken them four years to release their next game off of the exact same engine they touted in 2011. The best game Zenimax has released, in the last decade, was by Obsidian. That requires repeating....

Skyrim wasn't bad at all.

 

[rooivalk]

Yeah.

On side note, I'll probably buying Fallout 4 near the launch date though (hoping for a bit discount, 'value' lolz).

Newer Bethesda Games is always treated like crap, especially when new.
I remember "Oblivion is so boring compared to Morrowind", "Fallout NV is worse than 3", "Skyrim is so dumbed down".
But given time, newer games turn out (at least for me) bigger and better than the previous one, so I have high hope for Fallout 4.

 

[AsRock]

Skyrim wasn't bad at all.

I barely have any real issue's with their games, just seems like everyone else has mountains of issue's.

Problem with Skyrim like FO3 story was shit short ok not as short but short all the same. That said i got loads of hours in with both of them just wish the plot \ story's to them would be much more involving.

As for buying it going wait until DLC's are out as i am not willing to drop $80+ on a game

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Skyrim wasn't bad at all.

I know you're trolling. It's in your nature.

Let's just do the barest of searches... Oh my:
http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Patches_(Skyrim)


So we're clear, that's why I'm angry. People forget that, yet systems just as complex are executed without bugs. You want some fun, pull out your N64 and play Pokemon Stadium or Goldeneye. Once your eyes stop bleeding, note that both have complex systems, and neither game ever got patched. They went into production with maybe a few minor bugs, but their bug list is trumped by the bugs fixed by Bethesda in one Skyrim patch.\


Edit:
I remember people saying Skyrim was dumbed down. Then those same people installed a competent UI and mods to "fix" the "problems" they experienced. That wasn't a good base game, that was a person tailoring the experience to their expectations. I'm tired of that. If I'm to spend $60, and another chunk of money to get the DLC, then it had better be awesome.

I somehow remember New Vegas differently. I remember people complaining about the perks, the structure, and even the pacing. Never did I hear that it was less stable than 3. Never did I hear that console commands were required to resurrect vital characters who phased out of the map.

 

[erocker]

How is "Skyrim wasn't bad at all" trolling? It's wasn't bad.. It was actually good! People loved the game, they sold many copies. I enjoyed it. Yeesh!

 

[yogurt_21]

pip boys on sale again...or at least they were earlier today, might be sold out by the time of this posting

 

[rooivalk]

I remember people saying Skyrim was dumbed down. Then those same people installed a competent UI and mods to "fix" the "problems" they experienced.

No, Skyrim being dumbed down is mainly about levelling system and character creation not about UI.

1. The levelling system is considered too easy, you could become anything without penalty.
In Morrowind/Oblivion, if you only focused on one or two (such as longsword and heavy armor), you'll end up with maximum(5) Strength attribute but only one point towards other attributes leading the other skills respective to these attributes become rather weak. So, your objective for each level is to maximize multiplier for 3 (max) attributes of your choice.
This considered as 'rewarding', 'not casual', 'you need to think' and so on.

In Skyrim, attributes is dumbed down to only health, magicka, and stamina and you could choose one everytime you level up. No penalty, no effort.

Back then I agree it's dumbed down. But after replaying Morrowind and Oblivion with efficient levelling, I found that's not the case.
In Morrowind you'll become way too powerful long before you hit all stats 100, and hitting one/two favorite attributes to 100 is much easier and fun even without efficient levelling. At that point everytime you level up, you actually grow weaker in comparison to monster. Still, by the end of the game, you'll become rather godlike, until you hit Bloodmoon last quest. The stronger you are actually making the werewolves much more difficult to kill.
In Oblivion, monster is obviously grow stronger the more you level up, much more so than Morrowind. At level 30 (of which every monster are at their peak power), you aren't that powerful compared to level 10 character with level 10 monster. For example, you'll having hard time saving Jauffre or Baurus in Defense of Bruma quest, and your fight will become longer due monster having much more hp.

So, it's tedious to keep track your stats without resorting to console (tdt), it's annoying to prevent some skills to level up while you're in dungeon, but if it's rewarding it's pay off right? But no, it's not rewarding either.
Skyrim maybe casual, but if I have to replay again I prefer to have Skyrim system. Fun and rewarding.

2. Character creation
To be honest I have no idea what's this about. Without mods, I could make better face in Skyrim than in Oblivion, Morrowind, and Fallouts (Fallouts are uglyyy).
In Oblivion I could make my teacher face though lol, I can't do that in Skyrim without ECE.

Sidenote about UI:
As much as I dislike it, if you have neat inventory it's actually faster than SkyUI (probably not the case for 99% people lol).
Currently SkyUI is a framework mod for many other mods, so even if you like default UI on keyboard+mouse (you're weird), you possibly have to install SkyUI.

 

[Techmaner]

I just started playing Fallout, and I have to say it's amazing. I guess now I'll have to be the noob for a while.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

How is "Skyrim wasn't bad at all" trolling? It's wasn't bad.. It was actually good! People loved the game, they sold many copies. I enjoyed it. Yeesh!

Personally, I liked Skyrim. At the same time, let's be real.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-discussion.154901/page-243


After the hype pages, the first couple of dozen were about bug fixing. There were then several about the game. Browsing every 10 pages, the last 50+ pages were about mods and fixing the game (I'm being generous here, it should likely be closer to 100+ pages). Skyrim is a good game, but upon release it was a mess (though nowhere near Fallout 3 levels). It became a great game as Bethesda released the previously cited train of patches. It only truly became as good as it is when the mod community decided to fix oversights, and add features that they wanted. If you believe that's unfair remove all of your mods, and play Skyrim vanilla. Once you've slogged through that, come back to the table and tell me how good it is. Better yet, play through it vanilla without the patches. Somehow people forget how wonky it was in the first few weeks.

Edit:
I'm assuming TMM is trolling, because that's the modus operandi. You assume a duck will quack, I'll be a long winded blow-hard, and TMM will troll. You're right 90% of the time or better.



Edit:

No, Skyrim being dumbed down is mainly about levelling system and character creation not about UI.

1. The levelling system is considered too easy, you could become anything without penalty.
In Morrowind/Oblivion, if you only focused on one or two (such as longsword and heavy armor), you'll end up with maximum(5) Strength attribute but only one point towards other attributes leading the other skills respective to these attributes become rather weak. So, your objective for each level is to maximize multiplier for 3 (max) attributes of your choice.
This considered as 'rewarding', 'not casual', 'you need to think' and so on.

In Skyrim, attributes is dumbed down to only health, magicka, and stamina and you could choose one everytime you level up. No penalty, no effort.

Back then I agree it's dumbed down. But after replaying Morrowind and Oblivion with efficient levelling, I found that's not the case.
In Morrowind you'll become way too powerful long before you hit all stats 100, and hitting one/two favorite attributes to 100 is much easier and fun even without efficient levelling. At that point everytime you level up, you actually grow weaker in comparison to monster. Still, by the end of the game, you'll become rather godlike, until you hit Bloodmoon last quest. The stronger you are actually making the werewolves much more difficult to kill.
In Oblivion, monster is obviously grow stronger the more you level up, much more so than Morrowind. At level 30 (of which every monster are at their peak power), you aren't that powerful compared to level 10 character with level 10 monster. For example, you'll having hard time saving Jauffre or Baurus in Defense of Bruma quest, and your fight will become longer due monster having much more hp.

So, it's tedious to keep track your stats without resorting to console (tdt), it's annoying to prevent some skills to level up while you're in dungeon, but if it's rewarding it's pay off right? But no, it's not rewarding either.
Skyrim maybe casual, but if I have to replay again I prefer to have Skyrim system. Fun and rewarding.

2. Character creation
To be honest I have no idea what's this about. Without mods, I could make better face in Skyrim than in Oblivion, Morrowind, and Fallouts (Fallouts are uglyyy).
In Oblivion I could make my teacher face though lol, I can't do that in Skyrim without ECE.

Sidenote about UI:
As much as I dislike it, if you have neat inventory it's actually faster than SkyUI (probably not the case for 99% people lol).
Currently SkyUI is a framework mod for many other mods, so even if you like default UI on keyboard+mouse (you're weird), you possibly have to install SkyUI.

You've spent an excellent amount of time citing why games get better with time, and why homogenizing the games makes them feel better (because they don't differ).

Screw Elder Scrolls, let's go back to what defined modern RPGs. System Shock 2 was the RPG. You could level up any way you wanted, there were benefits to playing a role, and the game was tough as nails.

Oblivion and Morrowind took the same framework, made it prettier, and made it bigger. Other than the story, these games were mechanically System Shock 2. Along comes the Fallout 3 and Skyrim teams. They've changed the focus from an RPG into a game where you can literally just level up into everything. You don't have to decide to be sneaky, strong, or good with projectiles. In Fallout 3 and Skyrim you could literally do everything. You removed the R from the RPG.

While I liked Fallout 3 and Skyrim, they really weren't RPGs. Specifically, there's no reason to make a character with every upgrade channeled into Magika, and the game even reinforces this by forcing you to master unrelated disciplines to get what upgrades you want (anyone else do a spell sword, and wind up with full alchemy just to get the perks?). Once you remove the R from and RPG, what are you left with?

I think too many games take the RPG leveling system, and consider themselves an RPG. Of course, at this point I'm arguing off topic.

 

[BumbleBee]

yeah but look at how skyrim fared over the years - you can play it now with ease and graphics way beyond what hardware of the time was capable of. the UI is what holds that game back, or they'd still be releasing expansions for it today.

oh and those fun physics bugs could be fixed by locking the game to 59FPS, no joke it was actually an engine bug about 60+FPS, and some monitors freaked it out (59Hz over HDMI, for example)

I hope Gamebryo engine can handle 120hz now

 

[rtwjunkie]

I hope Gamebryo engine can handle 120hz now

I thought it was a new game engine? It's even 64-bit.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I thought it was a new game engine? It's even 64-bit.

Nope or at least not entirely.

Gamebryo was used for quite some time. After that, they developed the creation engine, which was Gamebryo bootstrapped to a better graphics engine.

This is both interesting (Gamebryo instructions still work on the creation engine), and depressing (known Gamebryo issues still crop up in Creation).

 

[BumbleBee]

I thought it was a new game engine? It's even 64-bit.

yes but it's still the Gamebryo engine. that's what I read anyways.

 

[BiggieShady]

yes but it's still the Gamebryo engine. that's what I read anyways.

Well it's called Creation engine now and indeed it is based off Gamebryo codebase but it's unclear how much of it got rewritten ... suffice to say Gamebryo on their web proudly displays Morrowind, Oblivion and Fallout 3 but not Skyrim.