Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
LET'S DISCUSS FALLOUT 4 - SPOILERS (OBVIOUSLY)
Posts
Shinan
4314
Shinan
View playlists
CloseOn the other hand Bethesda games have always been "all the things at all the times". At least if that thing about being able to be the head of two opposing factions in Oblivion was true. (and I have no doubt it was) Essentially they seem to be of the "don't shut people out of content" school of RPG design.
author=Max McGeeWhich I understand. But at the same time, heterosexuality is more common. You're not going to find yourself in the situation of being unable to romance that cute girl you want to because of her sexuality nearly as often as a homosexual girl will.I understand the argument against being able to romance pretty much everybody, but it's a really easy stance to take when you're straight since it doesn't mean such a large, and potentially fun, part of the game is closed off to you in certain ways based on your whether or not you play as your actual gender. I don't think calling it lazy is really fair considering it helps being inclusive.My being straight is totally freaking irrelevant here. Like if Piper was a lesbian and my straight male character couldn't romance her that would be an IMPROVEMENT in my opinion because the character would feel more like a character.
Just... as a media that can be enjoyed for escapism, I can get behind encouraging games that instate strict sexualities for its characters because it really adds to them! I'm not behind discouraging inclusiveness however. I don't think every game should have to state specific sexualities or always avoid power plays. It really just seems to give room for different kinds of role-playing.
Keep in mind I agree it's best story-wise if the characters have specific sexualities, but I don't believe it adds so much that inclusiveness will kill the atmosphere more than it adds to player enjoyment.
I'm saying that since you presumably don't have to deal with this as regularly, it doesn't suck as much. I recognize it's better writing-wise. Well, in my opinion at least.
suzy_cheesedreams
1480
The first time I played DA Inquisition I tried to romance the crap out of Dorian with a lady. He turned out to be gay and so I started the game over with a dude character.
I rather like the restrictions in that game as it does, as others have said, help to make the characters more believable. There are neat interactions to do with these restrictions as well - you can, as a man, show interest in Cullen before he politely turns you down, for example.
But I get why some people would want to be able to do whatever with whomever through the course of one game.
I rather like the restrictions in that game as it does, as others have said, help to make the characters more believable. There are neat interactions to do with these restrictions as well - you can, as a man, show interest in Cullen before he politely turns you down, for example.
But I get why some people would want to be able to do whatever with whomever through the course of one game.
Which I understand. But at the same time, heterosexuality is more common. You're not going to find yourself in the situation of being unable to romance that cute girl you want to because of her sexuality nearly as often as a homosexual girl will.
In a game, though? Like do you have information about the sexual preference demographics of post-apocalyptic Boston that I don't?
On the other hand Bethesda games have always been "all the things at all the times". At least if that thing about being able to be the head of two opposing factions in Oblivion was true. (and I have no doubt it was) Essentially they seem to be of the "don't shut people out of content" school of RPG design.
Not sure I agree about this, either. But I don't know exactly when "romance" became a fucking thing in Bethesda games at all, honestly. I thought that was more of a Bioware thing.
Oh, sorry, I know I cuss a lot so I just thought I'd clarify: I'm not salty at anybody?
@Max Oh, I just thought a game would be a good place for stuff like that, since it's really our reality to create! It's not as if it's the strangest thing in the games either, so I think it's overall good if it gives some more people a good time.
Is that the quest to get the locket? Because I left that one sitting for quite a while before getting around to it. Granted, you have to search around for the damn thing a bit - it's not in anyone's hands, but stashed away in a toolbox of all places, so it's kinda easy to miss. I imagine that if the quest-giver died the quest would be ended, so maybe that happened? Of course, I might be thinking of the wrong quest altogether so... ^.^;
SO, here's a protip for anyone who's finding the game way too easy from the outset and it doesn't feel like a Fallout to them because they're not suffering enough:
Roll up a new character and instead of following the obvious critical path south to Concord, head out east from Sanctuary Hills. You will hurt. You will run. And you will die. My difficulty was set to Hard, but I don't think that's even necessary. I ran into a Deathclaw and a berserk Mr. Gutsy and got my ass kicked by a Radscorpion, ran away from Super Mutants and gunners. Even fucking Raiders are terrifying. I used almost all of my ammo and healing items trying to unsuccessfully to clear one raider base quest.
The tooltip menu even says that the Commonwealth gets more difficult the further SOUTH you go. It is fucking lying. The end game content difficulty-wise seems to be in a northeasterly direction.
I did this "Eastern Route" with my fourth character. I'm having a great time with my first three characters ROFLSTOMPING everything to dust under my power-armored bootheels, a GREAT time, but it doesn't feel like the old Fallout games. Going East feels like Fallout: fear, death, and powerlessness by the luck of the draw.
Open Question:
Has anyone actually had one of their settlements attacked by anything yet? I've been pretty negligent about defending them (although not completely negligent) but have not yet seen any come under attack. Is there a specific point in the game where they start attacking?
Second Open Question (Spoiler):
I'm really curious. Is it possible to JOIN the Institute? Just yes or no please, obviously I haven't actually found them yet.
Roll up a new character and instead of following the obvious critical path south to Concord, head out east from Sanctuary Hills. You will hurt. You will run. And you will die. My difficulty was set to Hard, but I don't think that's even necessary. I ran into a Deathclaw and a berserk Mr. Gutsy and got my ass kicked by a Radscorpion, ran away from Super Mutants and gunners. Even fucking Raiders are terrifying. I used almost all of my ammo and healing items trying to unsuccessfully to clear one raider base quest.
The tooltip menu even says that the Commonwealth gets more difficult the further SOUTH you go. It is fucking lying. The end game content difficulty-wise seems to be in a northeasterly direction.
I did this "Eastern Route" with my fourth character. I'm having a great time with my first three characters ROFLSTOMPING everything to dust under my power-armored bootheels, a GREAT time, but it doesn't feel like the old Fallout games. Going East feels like Fallout: fear, death, and powerlessness by the luck of the draw.
Open Question:
Has anyone actually had one of their settlements attacked by anything yet? I've been pretty negligent about defending them (although not completely negligent) but have not yet seen any come under attack. Is there a specific point in the game where they start attacking?
Second Open Question (Spoiler):
I'm really curious. Is it possible to JOIN the Institute? Just yes or no please, obviously I haven't actually found them yet.
Oddly, I've searched all the directions around Sanctuary and not had much trouble with them... Still haven't made it to Diamond City. XD
Lexington area is a bit eeeeh, and north of there isn't much of a worry, I found. South of Sanctuary ain't much to show, and the west just leads to the edge of the map (same with too north, though there's a power armour that way).
I did find this base which had about ten fusion cores stored away, which was pretty damn nice. Just laying there, really, with nothing protecting them. Also found one in the sewer area of Concord, so I'm not hurting for power.
I did find this base which had about ten fusion cores stored away, which was pretty damn nice. Just laying there, really, with nothing protecting them. Also found one in the sewer area of Concord, so I'm not hurting for power.
GHOUL PROBLEM AT SANCTUARY HILLS
(5 Minutes Later)
KIDNAPPING AT SANCTUARY HILLS
(5 Minutes Later)
RAIDERS HARASSING SANCTUARY HILLS
(1 Hour Later, turn in all three quests)
GHOUL PROBLEM AT SANCTUARY HILLS
KIDNAPPING AT SANCTUARY HILLS
RAIDERS HARASSING SANCTUARY HILLS
I would like to do something rather than be forced to do rando repeating filler quests involving rando settlements over and over and over again. Dude doesn't give you a break. "WAIT UP, SAM AT DERPVILLE GOT KIDNAPPED AGAIN"
It would be fine if they didn't enforce a time limit to failure, and eventually to abandonment of your settlements.
(5 Minutes Later)
KIDNAPPING AT SANCTUARY HILLS
(5 Minutes Later)
RAIDERS HARASSING SANCTUARY HILLS
(1 Hour Later, turn in all three quests)
GHOUL PROBLEM AT SANCTUARY HILLS
KIDNAPPING AT SANCTUARY HILLS
RAIDERS HARASSING SANCTUARY HILLS
I would like to do something rather than be forced to do rando repeating filler quests involving rando settlements over and over and over again. Dude doesn't give you a break. "WAIT UP, SAM AT DERPVILLE GOT KIDNAPPED AGAIN"
It would be fine if they didn't enforce a time limit to failure, and eventually to abandonment of your settlements.
ubon
66
it's called fallout 4 because as soon as you see it you'll fall, out, through the floor, to play something else,
author=Cecil_Beoulve
GHOUL PROBLEM AT SANCTUARY HILLS
(5 Minutes Later)
KIDNAPPING AT SANCTUARY HILLS
(5 Minutes Later)
RAIDERS HARASSING SANCTUARY HILLS
(1 Hour Later, turn in all three quests)
GHOUL PROBLEM AT SANCTUARY HILLS
KIDNAPPING AT SANCTUARY HILLS
RAIDERS HARASSING SANCTUARY HILLS
I would like to do something rather than be forced to do rando repeating filler quests involving rando settlements over and over and over again. Dude doesn't give you a break. "WAIT UP, SAM AT DERPVILLE GOT KIDNAPPED AGAIN"
It would be fine if they didn't enforce a time limit to failure, and eventually to abandonment of your settlements.
Ah, the wonders of shitty, randomly generated/activated radiant quests. Bethesda has truly done us well. I remember how awesome, fun, and totally not lazy in any way those were in Skyrim.
/sarcasm
author=mawk
it's called fallout 4 because as soon as you see it you'll fall, out, through the floor, to play something else,
I can confirm that this is a 100% accurate play by play of my experience with F4.
author=Pizza
Ah, the wonders of shitty, randomly generated/activated radiant quests. Bethesda has truly done us well. I remember how awesome, fun, and totally not lazy in any way those were in Skyrim.
/sarcasm
Eh, I didn't mind them in Skyrim. Of course in hindsight they could have been done better, but it was an attempt at something new to keep the game fresh while giving the player an opportunity to do things, or kill shit. I never judged Bethesda too harshly for this mechanic.
I have never had any problems at any of my settlements. Why is that? Just because I kept my defence marginally above my Food + Water?
That includes none of the random quests cecil just mentioned.
That includes none of the random quests cecil just mentioned.
ubon
66
oh! I'm glad Errant Signal did a thing -- I don't watch their stuff nearly enough, but what little I've seen has been consistently interesting and well-spoken. I'm going to have to work through their backlog one day.
