Is it just my perception?

[futurefields]

It feels like the Fallout 4 launch isn't nearly as captivating people as Skyrim was. Just seems like for all the hype people were still blown away by Skyrim. What do you guys think? Fallout 4 not as big a deal as Skyrim? Just a sign of the times maybe oversaturation etc...

 

[Soundmanred]

I agree, Fallout 4 is not nearly as captivating people.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I don't think Bethesda is too worried:

'Fallout 4' $750 million game launch leaves 'Call of Duty' in the dust - http://fortune.com/2015/11/16/fallout4-is-quiet-best-seller/

And later in the article: "Fallout 4 established a concurrent play record on Steam with over 470,000 PC gamers playing at once."

Also, by now people know what to expect from Bethesda so while Fallout 4 is a lot of fun it is mostly more of the same.

 

[Raduque]

Skyrim didn't have a soda.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Oddly enough, I haven't so much as even picked up Skyrim, and barely made it through half of Fallout 3 several years ago, despite now having plenty of hardware for the former. In Fallout 3, I found the story to be sorely lacking, in my opinion at least.

 

[Sulaco]

Oddly enough, I haven't so much as even picked up Skyrim, and barely made it through half of Fallout 3 several years ago, despite now having plenty of hardware for the former. In Fallout 3, I found the story to be sorely lacking, in my opinion at least.

You never play Bethesda RPGs for story.

I like to call them "Atmospheric RPGs", but they're essentially RPGs about exploration and being immersed in the world. The overall story is generally subpar or unsatisfying, but it's often made up for in just the sheer amount of STUFF to see, do, hear, and get lost in.

The rebuttal is often, "Yeah, but if I don't care for the overall story, I don't see why I would care to explore that world" and I get that, and it's fair.
But the Elder Scrolls games really do have a very rich mythology and wonderful scenery and atmosphere to take in and explore.

I put in just about 100 hours into Skyrim when I first played; and maybe 3 hours of that was the main quest line. Seriously.
It's funny...as soon as I had explored everything in the world and been everywhere on the map (and I like to dawdle and take my time), I just lost interest.
Still though, I got many, many hours of fun out of it even just doing that. Oh, and of course, there's these things called "mods" I hear they make for it too.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I prefer Bethesda's fantasy games to their post apocalyptic games. The lore and such with their Elder Scrolls series is much deeper than the story behind Vault Tech and "the evil communists".

 

[xantub]

These 'open world RPGs' all feel the same to me. Basically it's just a big world with fully voiced NPCs with MMO quests = profit. Gameplay? pfft! who needs that?

 

[zerocool84]

I seem similar. When I first played Fallout 3, I played that baby non-stop. It was great. Fallout 4 just hasn't grabbed me, it's basically the same game, it doesn't have the wow factor 3 had.

 

[smackababy]

You never play Bethesda RPGs for story.

I like to call them "Atmospheric RPGs", but they're essentially RPGs about exploration and being immersed in the world. The overall story is generally subpar or unsatisfying, but it's often made up for in just the sheer amount of STUFF to see, do, hear, and get lost in.

The rebuttal is often, "Yeah, but if I don't care for the overall story, I don't see why I would care to explore that world" and I get that, and it's fair.
But the Elder Scrolls games really do have a very rich mythology and wonderful scenery and atmosphere to take in and explore.

I put in just about 100 hours into Skyrim when I first played; and maybe 3 hours of that was the main quest line. Seriously.
It's funny...as soon as I had explored everything in the world and been everywhere on the map (and I like to dawdle and take my time), I just lost interest.
Still though, I got many, many hours of fun out of it even just doing that. Oh, and of course, there's these things called "mods" I hear they make for it too.

Fallout 4 removed all the exploring and RPG aspects from it. It is just a "Hey, you're in the wasteland and here is some power armor! Enjoy".

 

[zerocool84]

Fallout 4 removed all the exploring and RPG aspects from it. It is just a "Hey, you're in the wasteland and here is some power armor! Enjoy".

Yup, zero karma at all, no reason to be bad or good in this game. Blow up a city or not, this game doesn't have it.

 

[Blanky]

These 'open world RPGs' all feel the same to me. Basically it's just a big world with fully voiced NPCs with MMO quests = profit. Gameplay? pfft! who needs that?

I'm actually starting to get burned out on them.

Fallout 4 is everything I could have wanted. But it just doesn't have the thrill of F3.

I'm starting to think there is something inherently wrong with the concept of an open-world RPG and storytelling. Like the entire thing hasn't evolved. The nature of open-world plus having a main storyline are two things inherently at odds.

 

[smackababy]

I'm actually starting to get burned out on them.



Fallout 4 is everything I could have wanted. But it just doesn't have the thrill of F3.



I'm starting to think there is something inherently wrong with the concept of an open-world RPG and storytelling. Like the entire thing hasn't evolved. The nature of open-world plus having a main storyline are two things inherently at odds.

That's the thing though. When you have so much freedom and the game is nowhere near on rails or has any time limit, you get no real sense of urgency in the story. At least in Fallout, you had a set limit of days until your vault ran out of supplies and died.

 

[Bacstar]

Before Fallout 4 came out, I reinstalled FO3 just to revisit the game to help me decide if I should get the new one. After a few days, I quickly got bored which killed any interest I had of getting the new one. Plus, after purchasing Battle Front and being disappointed, I didn't want to take any more risks.

 

[007ELmO]

Open world is disconcerting to me, especially when it's just me. I might be one of the few who couldn't get into Elder's scrolls/skyrim because of that. I seem to do alright when there are others around (i.e. MMO).

 

[Blanky]

That's the thing though. When you have so much freedom and the game is nowhere near on rails or has any time limit, you get no real sense of urgency in the story. At least in Fallout, you had a set limit of days until your vault ran out of supplies and died.

The problem with these games is the main story goes like all of them in exactly the same way:

1) Introduced to main story
2) Sense that if you work toward only the main story you will miss out most of the game
3) You do a bunch of side quests, and then pick at the main story in bits when you get bored, end result being the main story doesn't end up gripping you much because it's fed in drips

Invariably at completion of main story you can go back and do things, but honestly who wants to complete the main story and then do menial side quests?

I'm really not sure what the solution is. Game stories are just not very good in open world games.

 

[Lil Frier]

I don't feel quite that way. To me, the problem is that I want to complete the side stuff, but they don't make it necessary. So, when I go do all of the side stuff in an area before the main content, I out-level the main story and its enemies, and there's just no challenge. It's pretty rare to see a game give you a lot of content AND a challenge, and that sucks.

WoW leveling is the same way. You might have 5 zones and 10 levels to go through in an expansion. However, you can get through all 10 levels in maybe 3-4 zones' worth of content. I didn't even touch the last 2 leveling zones in Draenor, I don't think. Where zone was meant for you to level twice, I'd find myself wanting to do all of the quests in the zone for the zone's achievement, and I was getting probably 2.5-3 levels, and it made the quest enemies way too easy, slowed XP acquisition, and generally made the leveling experience more tedious and boring.

I'd like to see a game like Fallout or Skyrim where I don't hurt my experience by playing the full game.

 

[AgentNein]

I'm enjoying Fallout 4, but the lack of a karma system kind of sucks. I'm not given any motivation that I'll be accountable for many of the actions I take. I don't know.

It's fun, but I prefer 3 and New Vegas easily.

 

[slag]

I seem similar. When I first played Fallout 3, I played that baby non-stop. It was great. Fallout 4 just hasn't grabbed me, it's basically the same game, it doesn't have the wow factor 3 had.

I think there gets to a point where there's just so much to do and so many storylines that it either is overwhelming and you don't know where to go, or its so branched out that you don't feel like you really have an end goal to get to or want to play because the goal is so diluted. I played it heavily when it first came out, but the story has become so fragmented that I've lost the want to play right now.

 

[KentState]

FO4 to me was like watching a movie from childhood that was awesome, but felt dated when you watch it as an adult. Adding settlements meant very little to the overall story besides one quest and the rest felt more of the same.

 

[BoberFett]

The problem with these games is the main story goes like all of them in exactly the same way:

1) Introduced to main story
2) Sense that if you work toward only the main story you will miss out most of the game
3) You do a bunch of side quests, and then pick at the main story in bits when you get bored, end result being the main story doesn't end up gripping you much because it's fed in drips

Invariably at completion of main story you can go back and do things, but honestly who wants to complete the main story and then do menial side quests?

I'm really not sure what the solution is. Game stories are just not very good in open world games.

That could potentially be solved with good storytelling and game design. Another poster said it correctly above, that storytelling and open worlds can be inherently at odds with one another, but if a sense of urgency could be added it might help. Perhaps if storylines progressed, either with or without you, the player would have to decide what to pursue. The writers and designers would have to account for the possibility that the user either did everything possible, or nothing, and include that in their overall story. That could add replayability as well. I'm sure it wouldn't be easy, but I'd like to think it's possible if someone put their mind to it. FO3 obviously did it to some extent, Megaton could either be saved or blown off the map. The story continues regardless but slightly differently.

Whether or not a publisher thought the design challenges were worth it is another matter. There seems to be a mindset right now that all content should be available to all players. Is a publisher going to fund development that only a small percentage of people might see? Or will they tell the devs to axe it and spend time on more bells and whistles to move units?

 

[BoberFett]

FO4 to me was like watching a movie from childhood that was awesome, but felt dated when you watch it as an adult. Adding settlements meant very little to the overall story besides one quest and the rest felt more of the same.

I kind of like the settlements as a discrete gameplay element, but it doesn't really seem to add to the game as a whole. It's a minigame, a distraction. It'd be nice if it tied into the story more. If the goal is to get your kid back, then having a huge army of Minutemen at your back because you took the time to build up a dozen settlements should make that task much easier than going in alone. And not just because you use settlements to cook up a bunch of chems and mod your power armor in a way totally detached from the story, but because your settlers look up to and help their General.

I think that's what a lot of players really ultimately want in open world games, true emergent gameplay. And that's difficult to code. But someday hopefully we'll get there.

 

[BoberFett]

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/141399/game-life-open-world-games-need-cut-already/

 

[ImpulsE69]

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/141399/game-life-open-world-games-need-cut-already/

I agree with much of that article. I've never finished an open world game. That's my own issue, as I just simply find no driving force to continue and get bogged down in the "oh look here, oh fetch this". The stories have stagnated so if the game play is horrid (such as Every Elderscrolls ever) I just eventually move on to something else.

Exploring the world only goes so far with me if there's nothing driving me to actually explore it. There's no emotional connection to a wooded area, or another grassy hill or the next half empty town with 3 people in it. Sure it looks pretty at first, but it gets old.

Multiplayer games also have damaged single player games for me. Once you've seen what is possible in something such as Eve Online, or the frustration and adrenaline rush in something such as League of Legends (or any competative MP game) single player games simply don't offer that rush.....and sandbox worlds with minimal story even less.

Guessing that is just age though.

My favorite new single player games in the last couple years have been Bioshock Infinite and Alien: Isolation. Both very linear very story driven games (remove the FPS aspect as that really doesn't come into play). That isn't to say I don't enjoy Witcher 3 or Mordor for instance. I do, but eventually it is just all the same old same old (granted W3 does a better job than most).