Skyrim shipped in November of 2011 and the creation kit was released in February of the next year, almost exactly three months later. They’re clearly following the same model, though the gap is longer this time around.
I think the mod community will fully embrace FO4 as soon as the tools are released. Many of the launch day players will come around for another look when the DLC hits, and even if they don’t purchase official DLC they’ll have access to mods from that point on.
I can’t see how it would become a genre-defining game in its own right, but with a bit of modding I think it’s an acceptable entrant in the series of Bethesda open-world games.
Yeah, I left “impact” purposefully vague as to have people give their own ideas. It’s hard for a game made today to be a complete genre-creator or game-changer (although we’ll have that opportunity soon with VR), but I mostly meant that the game won’t be thought of much, or played much, in the future.
I compared it to its sort-of-predecessor Skyrim, which I do think is a game with lasting impact. It was culturally relevant for a long time, and tons of people still play it 5 years later. I think there’s no way people will look back on Fallout 4 in 5 years the way they look at Skyrim now. And it’s not because Skyrim has broader mass appeal - Fallout 4 is a bigger seller.
But while hype sells a lot of copies day one, it doesn’t keep people playing for years to come, and make people think back on a game as one of the greatest of all time.
Sadly, I think Bethesda will learn more from the day one sales than the lasting impact, and the next Bethesda game will be even more dumbed down and forgettable.
I’m a huge Fallout fan and I think part of the challenge for Fallout 4 is that A) It’s not “complete” yet (still quite a bit of DLC coming, including some that looks rather interesting) and B) the fact the story isn’t as good as the one in New Vegas, IMHO.
I’ve got well over 100 hours in it but I’m sort of putting off progressing the main quest because I really don’t like where it’s going - I think all three of the main factions actually have some pretty valid points and think more could be achieved by sitting them down for a chat together than by deciding Group X must feel the wrath of my laser rifle because Group Y says so.
Fallout 4 hasn’t dropped off very steeply over the last few months (I’m guessing sales and the mod kit have driven interest), but it has dropped below Skyrim in average and peak numbers. Yes, Skyrim has been cheaper, but it’s now a 5 year old game. No way Fallout 4 is on anyone’s radar in 5 years.
I think part of the issue with Fallout 4 is that it’s made the technical limitations of Bethesda as a studio incredibly clear. Fallout 4 is no great leap ahead of Skyrim or even Fallout 3 in technical terms, and all the meanwhile CD Projekt Red has released Witcher 3 - a game with a world of similar size that absolutely destroys Bethesda games on just about every technical parameter - and ultimately in the story department, too.
For a long time part of why I was content with the technical limitations of Bethesda games was that I didn’t think you could pull off truly massive open-world content without making trades in the technical department, but Witcher 3 proved me thoroughly wrong in that regard, and I think Bethesda have to do some serious iterating on their various engines before their next major title. The stuff they deliver as of now simple isn’t up to snuff.
It’s not “just” the story, though. Bethesda, as a studio, doesn’t really seem to have had a single original idea since Morrowind, and not really good execution, either. They’re only in the market at all due to what increasingly seems like a fluke, and even if not, it’s evidently something they don’t want to spend time on. But let’s leave the general adulation for Morrowind behind, because that was a while ago. What’s left?
Well, Bethsoft doesn’t even really seem to exceed the general quality level of “talented modder.” They have some interested and even ambitious design concepts, but they just don’t have any interest in pursuing them. Every aspect of their games plays pretty good, but the studio always stops short of doing anything really well, with the kind of effort you (or rather, me anyway) expect from a major studio.
I’d also probably argue that some of their old, tried-and-true filler is really badly done. It seems like they go out of their way to keep the stuff from each game that sucked in the previous one. Plus, playing almost any of their games tends to devolve down to 95% pointless busywork to 5% good gaming experience, and yet the worlds are and game is so huge that it doesn’t feel that necessary. These would be whopping games even without the timesinks.
Which isn’t to say that I, say, hated Fallout 4. I didn’t. But I don’t have any desire to play to again and would have to think twice about buying any more Bethesda games. Mods may paper over some of the problems, but can’t fix any of them.
As impressed as I was by the new Doom I have to say I won’t disagree it’s been a while since we’ve seen anything new out of Bethesda.
I mean, their centrepieces at the E3 showcase were Dishonoured (looks awesome), an HD update for Skyrim (which no-one on PC cares about because it’s looked pretty awesome since day one and been enhanced with with mods as well) - and the new Quake arena shooter.
Fucking Quake, guys? Seriously? Why? Of all the games on the internet’s collective remake wishlist? Admittedly, I wasn’t a fan the first time around, but the first time around it was at least something a bit different. Arena/team shooters aren’t new and I’m just not seeing anything in the new Quake that would make me want to put down my copy of Call of Duty, Battlefield or Overwatch and play that instead.
What’s interesting is that there isn’t a huge amount of buzz around the remaining Fallout 4 DLCs - inlcuding one that’s set in the Nuka Cola world theme park. That strikes me as something people should be getting a bit excited over - but they aren’t.
Do you understand what arena shooters are? They aren’t new, but you’re saying that they shouldn’t advance a genre that has had basically like 5 games in 2 decades, for which the genre-defining game is 17 years old, because… because we have 80 Call of Duty games and Battlefield and Overwatch, none of which are in the same genre as the game they’re working on?
Your attitude is weird. So, you don’t like quake. Great. But Q3 is considered one of the greatest games of all time, one of the purest competitive experiences, in a genre that has been chronically underserved.
In any case, that’s pretty much unrelated. Zenimax/Bethsoft publishes the id games, but they have pretty much nothing at all to do with their main development efforts of the Elder Scrolls/Fallout games.
I’ve always understood an arena shooter to be a competitive and usually fast-paced PvP FPS, typically (but not necessarily) in the Quake/Unreal Tournament vein.
I wouldn’t call my attitude “weird” either. I don’t know anyone who is super pumped for a new Quake game. I’m sure there are lots of people who are, but I don’t know any of them (and, like yourself, I know a lot of gamers). Different circles, and all that, I guess.
Given the lukewarm reception Battleborn got (and yes, I know it’s a hybrid MOBA/FPS), I’m surprised at the decision to update a game which I’d suggest isn’t at the top of the “games which should really be remade” list.
Just because something’s old doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with it - and I stand by my earlier comment that there doesn’t appear to be anything in it to attract me (or a lot of other players) away from the squillion other run-around-and-shoot-everyone FPS games which are available (many of which are very good, too).
You’re clearly a fan of the agenre; what have you seen that’s make you interested/excited in the new Quake? Help me understand what the attraction is for that game specifically.
And my wider point, which I politely suggest you’re missing, is that regardless of whether Bethesda is publishing or developing the games, there’s still not a great deal of newness coming out with their name attached to it.
That’s not automatically a bad thing - sequels often improve on earlier games, and the new Doom is fantastic - but I also agree with the person who said earlier that Fallout 4’s problem isn’t that it’s a bad game (it’s not; it’s awesome IMHO) - it’s that it’s “more Fallout”, rather than changing the experience or offering something mind-blowing.
I’m actually not a huge fan of arena shooters. I respect them for what they do, but I don’t play them too much. I will probably play the upcoming totally free Unreal Tournament, so I’m unlikely to buy a new quake at least until it hits a really cheap sale.
But you acted like we get “arena/team shooters” all the time, as if Call of Duty/Battlefield/Overwatch were in the same genre as Quake 3. As far as shooter games go, coming out with a new Arena shooter actually is pretty risky/unusual/original compared to coming out with the 80th Call of Duty game. Games like Quake and Call of Duty are extremely dissimilar. Arena shooters are about extremely high mechanical skills, map control, very fast movement, very precise shooting, a variety of well balanced weapons, and a high time to kill so there are significant tactical choices during a fight on top of the extreme mechanical skills. Call of Duty games are about sitting on the top of a staircase with one of the 92 nearly identical weapons which kill in one or two hits, and are so forgiving that they require almost no skill to use, and waiting for someone to run by so you can click and they die.
As far as games due for a remake, Q3 is one of the most beloved games of all time, and yet the genre has been mostly dormant for over a decade. Seems like exactly the sort of revival that would fill an empty niche.
I have no idea what you think Battleborn has to do with a quake game. They’re not remotely similar.
Obviously the quake remake is poorly timed since we’re about to get another attempt to revive the arena shooter which will be completely free - not free to play but simply free - as an engine demo/sales pitch.
I think that may be splitting hairs and looking at an incredibly niche subgenre. The “pure” arena shooter as you describe it isn’t coming out because there’s simply not much that can be done with the design. Mechanically, Quake 3 is still quite playable. But I honestly can’t see anyone really doing anything with it - which is exactly why the concept branched out in so many ways.
tl;dr version: I agree with Martini. Doubt the crowd that played Quake 3 will show up for this. Doubt it’s going to be the next big thing for the modern gamer crowd.
Exactly. In many ways it’s a bit like the M1911A1 handgun - they basically got it right a century ago and there’s not a lot else you can do with it now; if you change it too much it stops being an M1911A1 and becomes something else. I suggest that, in a similar vein, there’s basically not much you can do to Quake III since (from what I gather) they pretty much nailed it.
Obviously iD/Bethesda are welcome to try - Blizzard did with Overwatch (which, let’s be honest, is basically Team Fortress 2 with better graphics and more characters) and have succeeded spectacularly. But the buzz around that game was phenomenal and pretty much everyone I know is playing it. I’m not hearing any buzz around a new Quake; so again, I suggest that the audience for such a game is fairly small, is still playing Quake III, or has moved onto other competitive FPS games such as the ones I mentioned earlier.
I’ll remember Fallout 4 for the attempt to bring in something new with the “settlement development” bits. IMO, without modding or hacking the game, there are noticeable limitations in that activity, but I still like to tinker with it.
I do not find Fallout 4 as “completely forgettable” or “bland”. I would rate the game as a 7 out of 10.
I’d give it a solid “B”. I don’t know if it’ll be known through the ages but, eh, most games aren’t.
I find it interesting that people keep comparing it to Witcher 3. But then Witcher 3 bored me to death by the time I hit the city and the game’s pacing completely fell apart. By that time I was getting tired of its “It’s super deep and mature if everything is 100% grimdark, right?” attitude anyway. Even allowing for its Eastern European origins, I’m pretty sure the NPCs in the Stalker franchise seemed happier and those guys were losing their hair and fingernails from radiation poisoning. The Fallout milieu was infinitely more attractive to me.
Sounds like your main issue is the setting, not necessarily what everyone praises about the Witcher 3: Depth and quality of quests. The writing is leagues better than Fallout 4, though that’s not saying much. It is very good, if a bit… well Eastern European. Kind of convoluted and meandering at times.
Eh, I wouldn’t say that. A little better, maybe, but relies far too much on the “Depressing = Deep” schtick. Very lazy at times but people eat that stuff up.
The “quality of quests” is pretty much what tanked the pacing once you hit the city. Numerous dull, boring quest lines wanting you to trot back and forth across the town.
While Fallout 4 was my favorite of the modern Fallouts, it was mostly because of the accumulated player quality-of-life improvements over past Fallouts (menus, crafting, companions, color palette expanded beyond just brown). Otherwise, there was nothing significantly memorable or thought provoking about the story/quests compared to previous.