Fallout 4

[TyGuy]

To hit small things, you should use VATS aiming; i.e., look at the target, quickly open and close VATS, then fire.

Saves AP, great for long-range with weapons that have low-to-zero spread.

Also guys, keep in mind, this is an RPG based on dice-rolls, not really a traditional FPS. It's not really designed to play like an FPS in a lot of respects.

For example, your minimum spread is a static value, but where your gunsights are pointing while aiming is not; thus, where the bullet ends up is a function of a few things; these are predominantly dependent upon your gun skill and strength (changed in Fallout 4 to perks + strength), as well as the weapon you are using.

As an example, sniping has historically required high strength for greater accuracy (STR > 8, or Steady Hands perk). Yet you'll see a lot of guys frustrated about sniping in Fallout, not realizing they don't really have the prerequisites to use the weapon at a high level of accuracy.

All of this in combination affects your ability to hit your target - yes, even outside of VATS.

A lot of folks can't get used to this idea, because this is not how first person shooters traditionally work. This is why Lincoln's Repeater, among a few select weapons, was the most widely used gun in FO3 - since it was an early-game, zero spread, rifle. New Vegas made this much harder, but made iron sight aiming more reliable.

Indeed, but you should still be able to fiddle with mouse acceleration in game and not through an ini file. Also, whose idea was it to have half the vertical sensitivity of the horizontal? Did they just do that to fuck with pc gamers? You should also be able to adjust the fov in game and not through an ini file. You also have to cap the framerate in this game as the physics are tied to it (just like in skyrim). So if you are rendering the game at over 100 fps, shit in the room will fly around the room like a grenade went off.

This is some pretty sloppy stuff

 

[Jack Brickman]

Also guys, keep in mind, this is an RPG based on dice-rolls, not really a traditional FPS. It's not really designed to play like an FPS in a lot of respects.

I'm aware of that. I was just responding to Bethesda's claims that the shooting was modeled after Destiny, which is complete and utter bullshit. It's a slightly smoother version of every other Bethesda game. I will give them that, unlike Fallout 3, you can actually shoot without VATS reasonably successfully. It was borderline impossible in 3.

 

[AuxiliaryPie]

I couldn't really get into FO3 or NV, so imma live vicariously through you guys in this thread lol

 

[gourimoko]

I'm aware of that. I was just responding to Bethesda's claims that the shooting was modeled after Destiny, which is complete and utter bullshit. It's a slightly smoother version of every other Bethesda game. I will give them that, unlike Fallout 3, you can actually shoot without VATS reasonably successfully. It was borderline impossible in 3.

I think the developers and marketers got a bit ahead of themselves and maybe crossed their wires a bit. The primary takeaway from Destiny is that it achieved very smooth, playable gameplay (aiming) at 30 FPS. Which, is kind of bullshit, because Halo 1 was the first game to do this well on consoles (Halo 1 & Halo 2 both run at 30 FPS then interpolated to 60 FPS).

Fallout 4, was unfortunately designed for consoles first; which we didn't know until last week. So it's entire design is based around 30 FPS gameplay.

There are many reasons that I'm thinking that this is why Bethesda was so closed about the beta; and why we're seeing a lot of bugs, etc, in the initial release. Because PC gamers would've flipped the script had they saw that Bethesda simply ported the Xbox One version, the least common denominator of all versions, across platforms.

This game does not look like a high-end PC game. Period. Doesn't feel like one - because it isn't one. It's a midrange console game; and not even something that would tax a PS4.

Sigh...

Beyond that though, I will say that aiming with cross-hairs is a lot better than what was available in FO:3 or NV; and that, from my perspective, as someone with at least 400+ hours in both games combined, I do think the aiming is substantially better in FO:4... but again, the underlying mechanics do appear to be the same.

I'll also say on my last several NV playthroughs, I just modded the game to use better cross-hairs, so, it's nothing new for me. The guns in FO:4 do have different "feel" to them, but that's mostly an illusion due to the animation/timing giving the impression of "weightiness."

 

[Jack Brickman]

I think the developers and marketers got a bit ahead of themselves and maybe crossed their wires a bit. The primary takeaway from Destiny is that it achieved very smooth, playable gameplay (aiming) at 30 FPS.

Fallout 4, was unfortunately designed for consoles first; which we didn't know until last week. So it's entire design is based around 30 FPS gameplay.

There are many reasons that I'm thinking that this is why Bethesda was so closed about the beta; and why we're seeing a lot of bugs, etc, in the initial release. Because PC gamers would've flipped the script had they saw that Bethesda simply ported the Xbox One version, the least common denominator of all versions, across platforms.

This game does not look like a high-end PC game. Period. Doesn't feel like one - because it isn't one. It's a midrange console game; and not even something that would tax a PS4.

Sigh...

Beyond that though, I will say that aiming with cross-hairs is a lot better than what was available in FO:3 or NV; and that, from my perspective, as someone with at least 400+ hours in both games combined, I do think the aiming is substantially better in FO:4... but again, the underlying mechanics do appear to be the same.

I definitely agree the aiming is better, but it's clear that they didn't reinvent the system at all. It's the same system, just slightly smoother. The only reason I brought it up is because Bethesda made those wild claims. Destiny, as mediocre as that fucking game was, had really solid shooting. That was about the only thing it did well. Fallout 4 does a lot of things well from my perspective thus far, but the shooting is at best mediocre. That's still a big step up from Fallout 3, but competence shouldn't be a selling point.

But yeah, it's kind of shocking how mediocre this game looks compared to other recent PC releases like Witcher 3, Mad Max, and Metal Gear Solid V. The environments are pretty and the art direction is as solid as is typical with Bethesda games (outside of Oblivion, which was boring as fuck artistically), but good god the characters are awful, and textures up close look like shit. Bethesda really needs to just create an entirely new engine from the ground up, because they lag further and further behind with each new game they release.

 

[gourimoko]

I definitely agree the aiming is better, but it's clear that they didn't reinvent the system at all. It's the same system, just slightly smoother.

To be fair, from a developer's standpoint, they did completely rewrite the aiming mechanics and the code between games. You can tell. In the previous Fallout FPS games (3/NV), the physics updates to models/particles was framerate dependent. Meaning, at low and high framerates, you could get non-deterministic behavior; but within some threshold, you could get very good accuracy. This allows for wider hardware and rendering characteristics of the engine.

Bethesda discarded this idea by going with the "Destiny" model, which is really the Halo model. Write a physics/aiming mechanic that is based on fixed 30 FPS / 480i gameplay, and interpolate from there. Destiny and later Halo games naturally assume 30 FPS / 720p; 16:9 (@TyGuy, this is why you see 2x horz sensitivity, as this is a simple mathematical transformation from a roughly 16:9 (~2:1) space into a 1:1 space).

This is what Bethesda meant by using "Destiny" as a model. Which is confusing. Had they simply said Halo 1, people would've understood somewhat better - but even then, it causes some confusion with folks who might not be familiar with how Fallout handles.

The only reason I brought it up is because Bethesda made those wild claims. Destiny, as mediocre as that fucking game was, had really solid shooting. That was about the only thing it did well. Fallout 4 does a lot of things well from my perspective thus far, but the shooting is at best mediocre. That's still a big step up from Fallout 3, but competence shouldn't be a selling point.

Hmm.. I think this is probably the only point we disagree on. I think the shooting mechanics in FO:4 work flawlessly for what they were trying to achieve.

Your bullet hitting/missing or doing a specific amount of damage varies drastically depending upon so many different factors - but these factors are deterministic.

It isn't supposed to, nor could it, play like Destiny - and that's why I understand how you'd be frustrated if that's how you thought it would play. But me, personally, I'd have been pissed if it played like that...

One of the best aspects of Fallout/Oblivion is that the mechanics allow you to tweak your character in ridiculous ways. For example, Riot Shotgun + perks + HP rounds, up close. Or Panciencia (sp?) + HP + critical on unarmored enemies at a distance. That's just not possible given the game mechanics.

But yeah, it's kind of shocking how mediocre this game looks compared to other recent PC releases like Witcher 3, Mad Max, and Metal Gear Solid V.

You'll get no disagreement with me here. The game doesn't look that great, even on powerhouse hardware. It looks like an Xbox One game...

The environments are pretty and the art direction is as solid as is typical with Bethesda games (outside of Oblivion, which was boring as fuck artistically), but good god the characters are awful, and textures up close look like shit.

I wouldn't go this far, and Oblivion at the time was amazing. But I get what you mean.

Bethesda really needs to just create an entirely new engine from the ground up, because they lag further and further behind with each new game they release.

They really can't afford it. Developing game engines that work take years. They need to rethink their business model and try to include some licensing costs for third party systems. A modified version of the Unreal engine would do everything they need to do and then some; but of course, they would need to cough up the expense.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Hmm.. I think this is probably the only point we disagree on. I think the shooting mechanics in FO:4 work flawlessly for what they were trying to achieve.

I'm fine with the shooting mechanics as they are. Again, I just brought it up because they made a point to compare themselves with Destiny, which isn't a favorable comparison. I actually like the VATS system and it fits the RPG nature of the game.

I wouldn't go this far, and Oblivion at the time was amazing. But I get what you mean.

I was referring to Oblivion's art design, not the graphics as a whole. I found Oblivion's art design to be really bland and uninspiring, especially after Morrowind. Skyrim was a step in the right direction, though.

They really can't afford it. Developing game engines that work take years. They need to rethink their business model and try to include some licensing costs for third party systems. A modified version of the Unreal engine would do everything they need to do and then some; but of course, they would need to cough up the expense.

If CDProjekt RED can afford to create a much better-looking game engine with less people and presumably a much smaller budget, I don't see how Bethesda can't.

 

[gourimoko]

If CDProjekt RED can afford to create a much better-looking game engine with less people and presumably a much smaller budget, I don't see how Bethesda can't.

Here's why:

1) You can't compare, linearly, two independent projects and tell one development group: "how come you didn't do yours like this!"

2) Both projects have been developed for years, and are based on serving two different audiences. REDengine is designed to be developed from a PC-centric viewpoint, while the 'new' Skyrim engine was developed specifically for the Xbox One. Bethesda is choosing to target the lowest common denominator to reach the widest possible audience.

3) The middleware platforms are vastly different. Bethesda largely uses procedural generation for much of it's content to save costs. The Witcher 3 is largely done by hand, without sophisticated motion capture, with human created assets for a majority of the faces/textures/models in the game. Obviously there is some procedural generation, but not to the same scale as Fallout/Oblivion (which isn't well done in Oblivion, to be honest). But to the point, these are two different approaches largely due to #4.

4) To be quite honest, Betheseda's labor costs are astronomically higher (likely by an order of magnitude) than CDProjekt. This disparity in cost is the entire basis of my own business model.

Beyond that, that's not really how software development works. For Bethesda to develop a comparable engine to what CDProjekt already has, in a console-centric way, without coughing up a percentage, would require development almost from the ground-up. That would be extremely expensive.

Honestly though, when they said they were using the Skyrim engine, I knew then and there this game would not be graphically intensive. I think we just got our hopes up and didn't read between the lines.

 

[Jack Brickman]

My impressions thus far:

• If you liked Fallout 3, you'll probably like this game too. It's pretty much the same game with some new features.
• The game does an absolutely piss-poor job of explaining how to do anything. I've had to alt-tab and google an absurd amount of shit, especially with regards to base-building since the game tells you next to nothing. I didn't even know you could scrap ruined houses and furniture until I looked online, and that is basically the most fucking useful thing you can do.
• The storage mechanics are absurdly obtuse. You can store things in your work bench, but you can't scrap them from there, which makes absolutely no sense. You have to transfer the items to your inventory, drop them, go into workshop mode, and then scrap them. It's effectively the dumbest system I've ever seen in a video game. Why can't I just hit X to scrap an item while it's in my inventory and have the resulting materials turned to junk that I can then mass transfer? Would that make too much sense?
• That said, building and upgrading your base is kind of fun, even though getting item placements right is an exercise in wanting to murder everyone around you. The main frustration comes from the lack of a snapping feature, so getting angles right is borderline impossible.
• The gameplay is typical Fallout, and that's a good thing. You explore. You kill things. You steal everything that isn't bolted down. You chat with strangers and make decisions that alter the courses of their lives. Good times.
• I can't decide if I like the new chat system or not. It's streamlined, but perhaps a bit too much. One thing I don't like is that it doesn't tell you how likely your persuasion attempts are to succeed. That's annoying, and can lead to lots of reloaded saves. I know it's color-coded, but I don't know if yellow means 95% or 55%, and that's the problem.
• There appears to be a ton of shit to do. I've been playing for eight to ten hours and already have a bunch of quests lined up. I like the idea of rebuilding the Minutemen, and of building a thriving group of communities, although I'm concerned the game may get bogged down by having control over too many communities later in the game. Sanctuary alone feels like more than enough for me to concern myself with.
• I like the new, streamlined perk system. It seems overwhelming at first glance, but once you figure it out it's pretty simple. Luck seems super over-powered to the point that I'm probably funneling a lot of points into it early in the game, though.

 

[Casualties14]

My impressions thus far:

• The storage mechanics are absurdly obtuse. You can store things in your work bench, but you can't scrap them from there, which makes absolutely no sense. You have to transfer the items to your inventory, drop them, go into workshop mode, and then scrap them. It's effectively the dumbest system I've ever seen in a video game. Why can't I just hit X to scrap an item while it's in my inventory and have the resulting materials turned to junk that I can then mass transfer? Would that make too much sense?

When I was crafting items there was a notification in the top left of the screen that notified me that "junk" items were being scrapped to create the items that I crafted. I cannot say whether I had the items in my inventory at the time or if they were in at a work bench. I specifically remember that a cigarette was scrapped to create cloth for an item.

I agree that crafting needs a tutorial or guide.

 

[Casualties14]

Indeed, but you should still be able to fiddle with mouse acceleration in game and not through an ini file. Also, whose idea was it to have half the vertical sensitivity of the horizontal? Did they just do that to fuck with pc gamers? You should also be able to adjust the fov in game and not through an ini file. You also have to cap the framerate in this game as the physics are tied to it (just like in skyrim). So if you are rendering the game at over 100 fps, shit in the room will fly around the room like a grenade went off.

This is some pretty sloppy stuff

I initially played with Vsync off causing my framerate to be quite high and it was a nightmare. Indoors my character was running around like he was on crack. I attempted to pick a lock by tapping A the lock pick immediately snapped.

The vertical sensitivity issue has been quite frustrating when an enemy manages to charge you. It is nearly impossible to drag your crosshair to the appropriate position to get off an accurate shot.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Yeah, the tutorials in this game are absolute shit given the complexity of a lot of the systems.

 

[TyGuy]

Yeah, the tutorials in this game are absolute shit given the complexity of a lot of the systems.

Remember when they use to give you that information on a colored Manuel? Those were always great to take in the shitter with you.

People have complained about hand holding; maybe Bethesda wanted to keep it real?

 

[Jack Brickman]

Remember when they use to give you that information on a colored Manuel? Those were always great to take in the shitter with you.

People have complained about hand holding; maybe Bethesda wanted to keep it real?

I mean, I'd rather have my hand held a little more than have to alt-tab my game constantly to google how to play it because the game itself didn't tell me. There are ways to make a game more hardcore without being deliberately obtuse. Look at the Dark Souls games. They explain to you how to play them in-game but are still insanely difficult.

One thing that's really funny for new players to Fallout is that the game never even tells you about the VATS system even though it is goddamn essential to getting through the game.

There's hand-holding and then there is just poor design. Fallout 4 falls into the latter category. That hasn't stopped me from playing it all fucking day, but just putting it out there.

 

[Jack Brickman]

The guy in this game is like the worst father ever. His son has been kidnapped by a nefarious organization that replaces people with robots, but he just wanders around all day doing odd jobs for strangers.

Also, this game has taught me that, in the future, duct tape and fans are the most valuable items on the face of the earth.