• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Fallout 4

Stiler said:
I do not get th epeople against co op in fallout or TES games.

It's long been a "dream" of many fans to be able to play/explore the worlds together with a friend and it would have no impact on the story (Since most of the time you travel with AI companions in both games).

Simply setup options the host can select (IE othe rplayers can't interact iwth npc's/harm friendlies, etc) so people can't " mess" up your game or do anything nyou don't want them to.

Thi sis the kind of thing that people wanted from MP in TES, we NEVER Wanted an "mmo" or for anything that would change the game.

Yet after ESO now if ANYONE brings up mp of any kind, even simple co op, the same kind that existed in one of the best rpg sof all time, Baldur's Gate, people get bent out of shape over it like it's somehow going to mess up the game and change it, when it doesn't have to.
Click to expand...

Preach it, brotha. I would've set fire to an orphanage and barricaded the doors shut in exchange for Skyrim or Fallout 4 with Borderlands' style of drop-in co-op system. (worth noting, orphans burn just like regular kids, except the flame is slightly bluer)
 
The concern is that if they add co-op they're going to increase the reliance on either playing co-op or having one of those retard AI followers with you at all times.
 
Tudz said:
The concern is that if they add co-op they're going to increase the reliance on either playing co-op or having one of those retard AI followers with you at all times.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons - maybe THE reason - that TES and Fallout are as popular as they are is that the player inevitably ends up being massively overpowered. You seem to be suggesting otherwise, but surely you don't mean that.
 
evilsofa said:
One of the reasons - maybe THE reason - that TES and Fallout are as popular as they are is that the player inevitably ends up being massively overpowered. You seem to be suggesting otherwise, but surely you don't mean that.
Click to expand...

Actually that's usually the point where I get bored and quit or start a new character. Having better balance in the game and reducing the different ways you can power level your character to be overpowered is one of my top desires for future TES and Fallout games :D

I would say THE main reason TES and Fallout are as popular as they are is the huge world that is fun to explore, the customisation and (to a lesser extent) the mods. If they could keep the customisation but reduce the wild imbalance it would only improve things IMO.
 
Tudz said:
Actually that's usually the point where I get bored and quit or start a new character. Having better balance in the game and reducing the different ways you can power level your character to be overpowered is one of my top desires for future TES and Fallout games :D

I would say THE main reason TES and Fallout are as popular as they are is the huge world that is fun to explore, the customisation and (to a lesser extent) the mods. If they could keep the customisation but reduce the wild imbalance it would only improve things IMO.
Click to expand...

there are simple ways to prevent co-op form impacting single player difficulty, and that is scaling.

think of it like boarderlands lets say a creature normally has 100 hp single player with 2 players they could bump it to 300 and double its damage increasing the difficulty when there are more players.

that is just one way, but there are others.
 
Wildace said:
there are simple ways to prevent co-op form impacting single player difficulty, and that is scaling.

think of it like boarderlands lets say a creature normally has 100 hp single player with 2 players they could bump it to 300 and double its damage increasing the difficulty when there are more players.

that is just one way, but there are others.
Click to expand...

Definitely, I didn't mean to say it couldn't be done, simply why it is a concern, the concern is that it won't be done well, lol. Players who don't care about co-op don't want to feel like they're playing a co-op game in single player mode, rather it'd be nice to have a single player game with a co-op mode, if that makes sense :D
 
Bethesda has a hard time releasing a bug-free singleplayer game. I can only imagine how much of a cluster it would be for them to even attempt any kind of multiplayer networking.
 
It is fairly amazing how many problems their games have and yet are still so fun even at release. Part of me wonders wtf they are doing sometimes. Like the memory patches that fans put out for the Elder Scrolls games and Fallout games. These patches were put out so quickly by fans yet Bethesda didn't get it in till Skyrim in a patch after release.

I would love to see a player ran persistent server for co-op. The way older games handled things, like Tribes, where you could change the player count and even mod the game to your liking.
 
I think a multiplayer mode for Fallout 4 could be fun. IMO, it would need to be a sandbox style game - you build things, people show up (good and bad). You build certain things, so you can have certain things, to build other things and the level of difficulty increases. Maybe some missions here and there to move things forward. I really would need to be a player ran server, with save files or the like so the state of your "town" would be saved and you could play when ever you had the opportunity. Not MMO tho.. heavens no... I would not want to play with some random twathat who's "beaten the game" and ruins it for everyone.

I really don't see the main story line going multiplayer tho. I'm not "against it" and going co-op could be fun - mix up the skills with other players - but don't see it happening. I would play it tho :)
 
With the new building aspect in Fallout 4, it seems like it would be the perfect time to implement some form of MP/co-op.
 
MavericK96 said:
With the new building aspect in Fallout 4, it seems like it would be the perfect time to implement some form of MP/co-op.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd rather Bethesda stick to what they are actually good at doing (building immersive, single-player open worlds). Bethesda seems to be one of the few developers not forced by their publisher to shoehorn multiplayer support into games where it has little place. Let's be thankful for that rather than taking it for granted.

Modders have added co-op to Oblivion, and it's not particularly engaging. If that's the sort of experience you want anyway, you can always mod it in yourself or wait for someone else to do it.
 
I'd much rather have an officially implemented MP solution rather than a janky mod...adding MP to a non-MP game hardly ever works out well.
 
MavericK96 said:
I'd much rather have an officially implemented MP solution rather than a janky mod...
Click to expand...

The mod is actually pretty high quality. I recommend it if you're curious what co-op on a Bethesda game would be like. The problems for co-op are not really with the mod itself but with the style of the game.

MavericK96 said:
adding MP to a non-MP game hardly ever works out well
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly. (And likely Bethesda's as well.)
 
Wabe_2.0 said:
It's a Geralt simulator, and far from amazing.
Click to expand...


.... all games are some form of a simulator, Seems you did not enjoy Witcher 3 as much as I did, but thats whats great about games every one gets something different from them. Witcher 3 in my book set a new standard of amazing games, any way cant wait for Fallout 4 and I am sure it will be a great game. 2015 has been a great year so far in gaming and we are only half way though lol
 
2015 would have been great if Bloodborne had released on the PC. For me, it's been a mediocre year, with lots of disappointments.
 
Todd Howard confirms the map in Fallout 4 is about the same size as Skyrim.

Can you tell us how big the map’s going to be?

“I avoid answering that, and I’ll tell you why. If you look at our previous stuff, it’s kind of like that. We don’t actually measure it like that. Because Skyrim is one size, but the mountains take up a lot of space. That’s not really a game place, it’s in your way, you have to go around it, so we’re not really doing that. In the city, it’s very dense, but there is no load – like in Fallout 3, there’s a load – for areas of the city, we don’t do that. So it’s very dense, the buildings are tall, and a lot of them are open, so you can just walk in and around, so… it’s big. I wouldn’t say, you know, if you played Skyrim, I couldn’t tell you it’s X bigger, so we’re just saying it’s about the same size.”
Click to expand...

http://www.blahtrends.com/fallout-4-interview-todd-howard-talks-mods-in-game-building-and-map-size/

The map size seems about the same size but it sounds like Fallout 4 will be more dense.
 
Awesome to hear that they got rid of the separate "cells" for buildings and everything. Even Morrowind, 12 years ago, didn't have loading screens and whatnot for cities. Good to hear they've gone back to that.
 
Well, looks like my phone (Note 4) won't fit into the Pip-boy. That sucks I really wanted the CE but if my phone doesn't fit there is no point.
 
Derangel said:
Well, looks like my phone (Note 4) won't fit into the Pip-boy. That sucks I really wanted the CE but if my phone doesn't fit there is no point.
Click to expand...

Yeah well that's a phablet. Note 4 is awesome don't get me wrong but they have to draw the line somewhere so there isn't a big empty gap around the display for the more common regular sized smartphones.
 
DPI said:
Yeah well that's a phablet. Note 4 is awesome don't get me wrong but they have to draw the line somewhere so there isn't a big empty gap around the display for the more common regular sized smartphones.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It still sucks though. I don't have any older smart phones that would work either since I kind of doubt the app will work on my old Galaxy Epic.
 
Derangel said:
Yeah. It still sucks though. I don't have any older smart phones that would work either since I kind of doubt the app will work on my old Galaxy Epic.
Click to expand...

On the bright side,

1. Companion app doesn't require the Pip-boy shell so you can use your phablet or even tablet anyway.
2. No Pip-boy shell on your arm for hours upon hours while playing the game will allow you to maintain intimate relationships with females.
 
I hope Fallout 4 dlc follows the pattern of Fallout 3 and not Skyrim. Old World blue was $10 at release and it took me 20 hrs to complete. Old World Blues was better than most games by itself.

Skyrim on the other hand had $20 dlc that I never even touched.
 
TheOneKnownAsMe said:
Awesome to hear that they got rid of the separate "cells" for buildings and everything. Even Morrowind, 12 years ago, didn't have loading screens and whatnot for cities. Good to hear they've gone back to that.
Click to expand...

That was one area where Fallout3/NV seemed to be held back by concessions to the last generation of consoles. Even entering separate buildings had loading interruptions. PC only games like STALKER didn't suffer that problem.
 
Wabe_2.0 said:
It's a Geralt simulator, and far from amazing.
Click to expand...

Agree, those that went nutty over witcher 3 are insane. It's a poorly done port, the horse is a joke trying to ride, it gets stuck on everything, handles super poorly too.

Combat put me to sleep, nothing involved other than hit and retreat hit and retreat. I mean Dark Souls had some of the same thing but at least it was tight and movement was on par. I find that Geralt is either facing the wrong way or attack slowly or spinning instead of attacking, etc etc.

The story line is OK I guess. Didn't hook me, Geralt is a 'bad ass try hard'. I didn't and don't care for how disinterested and unimpressed he is the entire game. 0 emotion from him other than 'tough'.

Game was a crap-shoot and the peasants went nuts for it. By and large I need to ignore 'paid to score high' review sites and metrics. For instance.. a 6 average rating for batman on metacritic... and the fans gave it a 1.4.

Little inflation there?
 
Savi said:
Witcher 3 did that, dont get me wrong Fallout really looks great already preordred the CE version lol but Witcher 3 is just amazing,
Click to expand...

I don't know what it is but I just couldn't get into Witcher 3 as much as other games. I played for about a week about a solid 10-15 hours into it. I love the game, the graphics are great but everything else feels unintuitive. From a distance Witcher 3 looks amazing but the closer you get the messier it becomes. Oblivion was my life for 2 months. Fallout 3 had me hooked from day 1 and I couldn't stop until I beat the story. Skyrim took away 400+ hours of my soul. Bethesda games just know how to make me open the game. With most games after I stop chain playing I just lose interest in launching it. With Bethesda the first thing I think about when I get home from work is launching up Fallout or Elder Scrolls.
 
topslop1 said:
Agree, those that went nutty over witcher 3 are insane. It's a poorly done port, the horse is a joke trying to ride, it gets stuck on everything, handles super poorly too.

Combat put me to sleep, nothing involved other than hit and retreat hit and retreat. I mean Dark Souls had some of the same thing but at least it was tight and movement was on par. I find that Geralt is either facing the wrong way or attack slowly or spinning instead of attacking, etc etc.

The story line is OK I guess. Didn't hook me, Geralt is a 'bad ass try hard'. I didn't and don't care for how disinterested and unimpressed he is the entire game. 0 emotion from him other than 'tough'.

Game was a crap-shoot and the peasants went nuts for it. By and large I need to ignore 'paid to score high' review sites and metrics. For instance.. a 6 average rating for batman on metacritic... and the fans gave it a 1.4.

Little inflation there?
Click to expand...

How do we favourite posts in here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top