4 ms·

Every game has somebody who loves it. Even that terrible Superman game. Fallout 4 wasn't total garbage, but it was huge step down from Fallout 3 or Skyrim.

noncoml 6y ago
> it was huge step down from Fallout 3 or Skyrim In what way? And how is your opinion better metric than my opinion? You have data to back it up?
- ck425 6y ago
  It was a huge step down if you liked RPG games, which given Bethesda traditionally made rpg games and that fallout was originally an rpg series is hugely important. Fallout 4 suffered from quest repetition/duplication, an emphasis on combat over other rpg driven approaches to play and a relatively low ability to effect the world as the player. It's not a bad game per say but it's a mediocre rpg. It was arguably more disappointing given how incredible an rpg New Vegas was despite not having been finished properly.
- codezero 6y ago
  How about comparing metacritic scores? https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-3 https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-3 https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-4 https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-4 One might slice and dice this by platform, but I think there was a general consensus that 4 was not as good as 3 both in meta score and user score.
- zamalek 6y ago
  Skyrim was a significant technical advancement of Gamebryo, not just in terms of visual quality or so forth, but also in terms of what was possible with the engine. Fallout 4 was a minor upgrade and could have easily been a total conversion mod for Skyrim - there was no innovation and it did nothing new. Irrespective of whether people enjoyed that re-skinned Skyrim, it was a blatant cash-grab. The argument has nothing to do with anybody enjoying the game, a metric that I did not mention at all in my comment, it has to do with a growing trend where Bethesda has been doing the absolute bare minimum to cash in on their fans' good will.
  - noncoml 6y ago
    You do understand that the quality of game engine is completely orthogonal to how good a game is, right? For some reason you believe that your opinion about the game is universally true, while the opinion on the other is personal preference. You are just trying to prove that vanilla flavor is universally better than chocolate. Edit: Retracting "Borderline bigotry."
    - codezero 6y ago
      They left a comment on the internet - I don’t think it’s civil to conflate it to being universal - why not explore their opinion, or just accept that de gustibus non est disputandum? Also, what if vanilla could be proven to be universally better? That’d be cool, how could one go about doing that? Probably either: eliminate the supply of chocolate world wide, or spend billions marketing vanilla... Probably lots of ways to get a universal sentiment with the right levers! One ding in chocolate: there’s no chocolate coca-cola... or is there? I should google that :) There do seeeeeem to be more vanilla flavored mass market colas than chocolate, but that’s very much cherry picking. A ding for vanilla, I’m not sure if it’s ever eaten alone in any meaningful way, but I dunno, I’d have to think about it more.
    - zamalek 6y ago
      > quality of game engine is completely orthogonal to how good a game is, right? That's exactly my point. I haven't once conflated the two, all of your comments have.
      - codezero 6y ago
        I’m feeling like, during the lockdown, we need to have some kind of shit throwing HN comment competition to get all the angst out of our systems. First rule: make every assumption about the other commenter’s intent. Second rule: never actually directly respond to the other commenter. It’s like code golf, but to get toxic online interactions out of our systems in a controlled environment. What do you think? :)
        6y ago

noncoml 6y ago

> it was huge step down from Fallout 3 or Skyrim In what way? And how is your opinion better metric than my opinion? You have data to back it up?

ck425 6y ago
It was a huge step down if you liked RPG games, which given Bethesda traditionally made rpg games and that fallout was originally an rpg series is hugely important. Fallout 4 suffered from quest repetition/duplication, an emphasis on combat over other rpg driven approaches to play and a relatively low ability to effect the world as the player. It's not a bad game per say but it's a mediocre rpg. It was arguably more disappointing given how incredible an rpg New Vegas was despite not having been finished properly.
codezero 6y ago
How about comparing metacritic scores? https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-3 https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-3 https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-4 https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-4 One might slice and dice this by platform, but I think there was a general consensus that 4 was not as good as 3 both in meta score and user score.
zamalek 6y ago
Skyrim was a significant technical advancement of Gamebryo, not just in terms of visual quality or so forth, but also in terms of what was possible with the engine. Fallout 4 was a minor upgrade and could have easily been a total conversion mod for Skyrim - there was no innovation and it did nothing new. Irrespective of whether people enjoyed that re-skinned Skyrim, it was a blatant cash-grab. The argument has nothing to do with anybody enjoying the game, a metric that I did not mention at all in my comment, it has to do with a growing trend where Bethesda has been doing the absolute bare minimum to cash in on their fans' good will.
- noncoml 6y ago
  You do understand that the quality of game engine is completely orthogonal to how good a game is, right? For some reason you believe that your opinion about the game is universally true, while the opinion on the other is personal preference. You are just trying to prove that vanilla flavor is universally better than chocolate. Edit: Retracting "Borderline bigotry."
  - codezero 6y ago
    They left a comment on the internet - I don’t think it’s civil to conflate it to being universal - why not explore their opinion, or just accept that de gustibus non est disputandum? Also, what if vanilla could be proven to be universally better? That’d be cool, how could one go about doing that? Probably either: eliminate the supply of chocolate world wide, or spend billions marketing vanilla... Probably lots of ways to get a universal sentiment with the right levers! One ding in chocolate: there’s no chocolate coca-cola... or is there? I should google that :) There do seeeeeem to be more vanilla flavored mass market colas than chocolate, but that’s very much cherry picking. A ding for vanilla, I’m not sure if it’s ever eaten alone in any meaningful way, but I dunno, I’d have to think about it more.
  - zamalek 6y ago
    > quality of game engine is completely orthogonal to how good a game is, right? That's exactly my point. I haven't once conflated the two, all of your comments have.
    - codezero 6y ago
      I’m feeling like, during the lockdown, we need to have some kind of shit throwing HN comment competition to get all the angst out of our systems. First rule: make every assumption about the other commenter’s intent. Second rule: never actually directly respond to the other commenter. It’s like code golf, but to get toxic online interactions out of our systems in a controlled environment. What do you think? :)
      - 6y ago