How so?
It seems it is giving the gist in text, which would be the context.
The way I see it is that those responses would also depend on your build. In which case, the context of what the PC says should hinge on, well, what that particular PC build would say.

For instance, if you don't like vanilla Ice cream, why would you want one of the choices for ice cream to be vanilla? sure, you still have the choice, but it doesn't matter, because it isn't a choice you would ever take.
I suppose it was nice to have the option to say something completely out of character for the PC, as in older games, for lulz and all, but until I see otherwise, I think the reaction to all of this is a bit melodramatic.

I mean this all of course from the POV of speculation, because we haven't seen enough info on anything to actually know our ass from a hole in the ground on it, and all.

Nothing about Fallout 4 looks to be in any way a new Burned Game, everything about the actual Burned Game was horrible. Nothing about Fallout 4 looks horrible to me. I was highly skeptical upon announcement, but after seeing all the stuff in the E3 release, I'm hyped.

To be fair, the best way to give your own criticisms of something is to experience it yourself.

I saw Fallout 3 coming, and was skeptical of it because I didn't like the direction they seemed to be taking the series. I bought it because I'm not going to go on all day criticizing something I haven't tried, and hoped I'd be proven wrong, maybe I'd even enjoy the changes afterall. So yeah, my money supported the game. Doesn't mean my posts have to.

1 There is always going to be generic responses along with build specific one, I hope/expect that's the same case in FO4.

But it seems conclusory to say that everything the PC says will be dependent on their stats (that's never been the case in a BGS game and the trailer doesn't challenge my presupposition that this trend will continue).

I also don't see how the text (presume you mean dialogue options) can offer any context when a considerable amount of it is one word, with the preponderance of text consisting of 1 - 3 words?Anyone who has played the Mass Effect games will tell you that Shepard consistently says something that seems incongruous with the initial dialogue option.I love the Mass Effect series but the dialogue system can derisory at times.

I personally don't see what advantages this system offers that an improved version of the F03/NV system couldn't offer.Both of them could be organic and fluid, with the older system offering far more detail and options in general.

2 I don't really understand the point you're making to be honest

I personally don't conform to some prescribed character or role, I'll quite often vacillate between options, ideologies and views over the course of a game.

Can't remember the amount of times I swayed between the main factions in my first playthrough in New Vegas.The point you are seemingly making seems like a completely superfluous restriction, by this logic we may as well just simulate dialogue based on our stats

I also don't think it's melodramatic to complain about an issue many people have an aversion to, MrMattyplays is about a liberal Fallout fan as there is and he even has a video criticizing it.

Do you have any criticisms of the new dialogue system or the potential removal of skills?Considering that Mr.House is your avatar I'd suspect that you value dialogue in Fallout and it looks as if dialogue may suffer due to these changes.

No skills and possibly simple dialogue is definately bad, but how have jetpacks ever been a bad thing?

The jetpacks need a background explanation, due to the rockets strapped on ironsides, I'm wondering if the institue had alot of rocket scientists and aeronautic engineers who designed experimental flying technology during the war. Much like te crazy nazi jet experiments found in ww2. Jetpacks fit the retro 1950s theme to a T.

I'll personally wait to play the game before making final judgement.

Speculating that Fallout 4 is going to be the next "burned game" is meaningless with what little information we actually have.

1) Why base how contextually accurate F4's dialogue choices will be on what ME did? It seems you'e upset that ME did something you didn't like (and rightly so), but it isn't implicit that this type of dialogue system won't allow context. How do we know how fitting the text options will be in context with spoken dialogue in F4?

2) I am indeed suggesting that dialogue offered may be based somewhat on our stats.
This is not new. This has been done with skill checks in previous games. The difference in, say NV, is that you can see the dialogue choices you can't make. Perhaps now, they will only show if passed, and other lesser options will vacate one of the option spots to make room for them.

You may well build a character that doesn't have a personality, choosing responses that are all over the place. I am not saying you are wrong for it. At the same time it is logical that someone would say something that is fitting with who they are as a person. People have vernaculars. Speech patterns. Think to ask certain questions, or react to what people say to them based upon who they are, after all. Saying something or reacting to something in a way that you normally wouldn't has a word- uncharacteristic.

More choice in dialogue is not in and of itself a great thing.
I like food anologies, So I will use another.
If someone tells you the restaurant down the street is great because it has 500 menu options, you might think, "WOW! it's a cornucopia of choice!" But when you get there, there are small medium and large versions of all of the items, making some choice moot, and then half of the menu is also shellfish, and you're allergic. Suddenly, that choice doesn't amount to much, and getting something based on what you like seems like the better choice.

But again, we don't know jack.
It could be the way you think (something i can concede). It could be the way I think.
More info is needed before assuming it will be a disaster, though.

NMA folks will hate any Bethesda game no matter what, everything looks decent so far except the skills being in limbo. The only way I'd dislike it is if they butchered the character system.

Eden's quote about this being the best game but Worst Fallout is spot on IMO.

I think a lot of things that Fallout 4 will do well with is the gameplay aspects like customization of weapons/armor (Teddy Bear Shooting Rocket Launcher ), exploration, atmosphere, etc. Where Fallout 4 will struggle is the Roleplaying aspects which is nothing new, it was a huge problem in Skyrim. Weirdly it was less of a problem in Fallout 3 although that's pre New Vegas. Dialoge will certainly be a problem too although I will give benefit of the doubt until I see more.

I bet the people at Bethesda take a shot for every pessimistic post on their boards. A truly grueling drinking game.

Not criticism, no. I'm curious to see how Bethesda's new system works on dialogue. Bethesda's strong suit was never really dialogue, they have moments of glory, but generally it's nothing impressive. But this new dialogue tree system has no real complaints as it looks like it's a shorthand way to give the gist of what the player will say or ask, but my only comment is they should be sure not to mislead players by saying "You're evil." then selecting it your character says "You're evil, but I'll join you.". I'm willing to give this new system a shot, but it's important to make it clear what kind of dialogue we're picking.

I'm of the same, I'm willing to give this dialoge system a shot. Do I think it's better then what Fallout3/New Vegas had, No but I'm willing to give it a try.

I see the jetpacks as a sign tbat the combat will be way more about action and cinematic feel than tactics. The way the player in that demo just jumped around the map and mowed down anything that moved with his minigun was ridiculous.


They would have died of alchohol poisoning long ago.

It's really no different than the players of Fallout and Fallout 2 who just roflstomp enemies up close with T-51b or Enclave APA and minigun or plasma caster tearing their enemies to shreds. The only difference here is one is top down isometric and the other is third/first person gameplay, really.

I really don't give a damn if that's how people want to play the game, I stick the CAR and Combat Armour in Fallout 3 and Fallout: NV I use the Combat Armour Mk 2 and hunting shotgun or cowboy repeater. Others like to be tanks. This is a single player game and every single player has their own method to playing these games. I probably wouldn't use PA much because it never appealed to me. Nor does the jetpack, but I'm not going to bellyache until bethesda removes it because how others play this game doesn't affect me one bit.

Ugh. Since it is futile, Im not going to explain the purpose of balance to you.

I understand the purpose of balance. But what I'm explaining to you is Bethesda gave the best of the toys in the toybox all in one throw for E3 because E3 is their one shot to REALLY impress the marketplace. Balance doesn't mean a damn thing at massive conventions like these, fun does. So I am aware this demo wasn't an example of what to expect of gameplay and the game will be much more tame. So get off your pretentious high horse, buddy.

>Balance

>in a Fallout game

No such thing has ever existed.

Fallout 4 will not be the next "burned" game, but this should be the next burned thread.

I need the rest of your fanfic from around 4 years ago, the one you started after finishing the story with Justin and Mr. House I'm telling you, I haven't been on these forums since I made this acc after losing my first, but I remember that fanfic, you're a great writer!

It's just another thing. They change a few things here and there, and it's the worst thing ever. Worst than Big Rigs. Worse than ET. Worse than Dragon Age 2.

TF2 gets the same heat every time they do an update, so I've learned to ignore the chittering, but not before I get a good laugh.

I do have a question though. How do we the players be able to let Bethesda know if we like the direction or not? To know the direction of the game, u have to buy it to experience weither u like it or not, but once it's bought it's shown as a product sold and from that they can't really tell if it was enjoyed or not.
If refunded does that take away from the total that is sold and do they see those numbers? A lot of times u can't even get a refund once it's opened.

So how does the players tell Bethesda if they are happy or not with the product without blowing up or talking about it on the forums?

Simple. Don't like it? Trade it in, write a bad review explaining why, submit it somewhere, like GAMEFAQS.com or elsewhere. Or blow up the boards here. Whichever you fancy. Just be constructive about it or it just comes off like whining.

The best part about waiting for a new Bethesda game is watching detractors and apologists go at each other's throats. Brings me back to 2011, know what I'm saying.

I'll definitely judge Fallout 4 on how "Fallout" it is. But I certainly won't let my enjoyment of the game be affected by it.

I'm not going to sit and whine about how much Bethesda has changed the series because it's pointless. But I also won't condemn those for thinking differently. NMA may be a bit volatile in regards to its stance towards Bethesda, but can you really blame them when they've watched their favorite series go through a different direction from its predecessors?

Anyways, I'll just let the drama unfold. It's inevitable anyways, just like back in 2011.

What I'm explaining to you is that the 'toys' are the problem in the first place.



Yeah no game has ever been perfectly balanced. There will always be small cracks and flaws here and there, but that doesn't mean we need a huge gaping hole.


Why is this a common mentality around here? Its essentially the same thing as putting your hands to your ears and yelling "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA SHUDUP!" Not all change is good and not all change is bad. In case you didn't notice, some people that made criticism also had positive things to say.