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.
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.
That was my big problem with Fallout 3, it felt like an Oblivion total conversion... I had difficulty enjoying it because it still "felt" like Oblivion in so many ways, to me :(
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.
> That's exactly my point. I haven't once conflated the two, all of your comments have.
How? The disagreement is if Fallout 4 was a moneygrab or not. Is that correct?
According to you it was because it "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."
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this "conflatng" the effort gone into a game, and specifically the engine, with the quality of the game?
No. It's measuring the amount of investment into the game.
Some very dedicated folks took the pittance of time/money afforded to them and made a fantastic effort. Imagine what the same people could have done with an engine that wasn't merely a minor graphical improvement. Imagine what FO4 could have been with richer story telling technology (dialog mechanics, interaction mechanics, etc.), instead the content team was stuck with the same scripting power available in Skyrim.
BOTH the effort of people who clearly care about the franchise AND the publisher's shameless money grubbing show in the final product.
I don't see it as shit throwing or being toxic. Apologies if I came across like this. I am just trying to argue about something that really doesn't matter for the sake of making arguments
Appreciate you saying this. Consider that your argument counterparts don’t see it this way. Are you saying you’ll sign up for my weird internet argument championships?
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.
