Well, you know how everyone's like "oh, it's shit isn't, just shite, absolute bum garbage of the lowest order"? Like, as apposed to "fixing" what you can and making do, start demanding they fix it themselves, and start releasing games that don't need fixing in the first place.
>>21148 Yeah that is a valid question, but it's not the half-arsed games development that I need to consider, it's the quality of the end product. With all its flaws, Fallout 4 is still, on the grand scale of games, a decent game. Therefore, it's worth buying and playing. It's just the price that you put on it that's open to question.
>>21150 Well then, this should be reflected in the price. If it's a great game on release, pay in full. If it still requires several months of modding to make it a great game, then pay a significantly reduced price. Consumers acting like, well, consumers, will hurt the company far more than any kind of letter-writing campaign. And that in and of itself is a demand that they fix it themselves - not paying for it in full.
>>21141 Well I caved. I meet the specs, but getting it to run was an absolute ballache. In the end I had to run in windowed, and then reduce my screen res to the same size as the window. What.
Also the character models are still as glitchy as they were in FO3. The first person I talk to, the minuteman, gets his head stuck on the scenery but keeps on moving until a thin string of neck is stretching across the room, before vanishing. My character still keeps on talking to an empty space. N1 Bethesda.
I am actually enjoying it though. Not as good as 3 though, IMO.
Enjoyable, but really it seems to serve as a great base for the PC version to be modded around. Stuff like the Dialogue choices, settlement building limits and of course nudity are already modded into the PC version and that's before they've released Mod tools.
Problem being that gamers simply don't act like consumers. They act like a herd of fanboy sheep. I really can't see a way around that problem. Instead of denying a company their money for a shit product, they just throw the cash at them regardless and then whine about it online.
>>21155 Even worse, most of the time when it goes for a refund, it's the retailer that takes the hit rather than the distributor or the developer. Thankfully the industry has solved this problem in the digital space by adopting a policy of "no refunds ever, good luck suing us".
>>21157 I imagine the EU forced them into it on the basis that they were literally never going to do it voluntarily. I also imagine that, like Amazon, refunds are entirely discretionary. In any case, Valve effectively act as retailer, and if they are able to dock payments to publishers it's only because of their effective monopoly position.
You're making assumptions about something you could have easily googled for clarification. You can get a refund for anything for any reason as long as it is within 14 days of purchase and you've clocked less than 2 hours of play time.
>>21161 In what way does anything you said make it not discretionary? Do you seriously think that if you used the refund mechanism as a way to try out a new game or two every day they wouldn't at the very least stop refunding you?
Do some fucking research instead of postulating when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. The first thing indy devs moaned about was people abusing it to "steal" their games and Steam don't care. As a consumer, you have a right to a refund under those terms. As long as you stick to them, Steam has no recourse. This is EU legislation m8.
>>21163 Where do you think I might have copied this from?
>Refunds are designed to remove the risk from purchasing titles on Steam—not as at way to get free games. If it appears to us that you are abusing refunds, we may sop offering them to you.
>>21163 I guess it's you who needs to "do some fucking research".
>As a consumer, you have a right to a refund under those terms.
No, as a customer, you have the privilege of obtaining a refund under those terms. You don't have a right to anything.
>As long as you stick to them, Steam has no recourse.
Apart from, you know, refusing your refund or blocking your account. Unless that EU regulation has a clause in it that says "you must deal with your customers forever and ever" they can and simply tell you go swivel. As little as three weeks after the broadening of the policy in June, users were receiving notices explicitly saying that they might not be refunded in future.
>This is EU legislation m8.
Yes, and it has a specific exemption which Steam satisfies, which you'd know if you'd "done some fucking research".
>>21163 Have you ever even bought a game on Steam?
>By clicking "purchase" you agree that Valve provides you with immediate access to digital content as soon as you complete your purchase, without waiting the 14-day withdrawal period. Therefore, you expressly waive your right to withdraw from this purchase.
>>21170 Yes, it worked well enough for you to get a refund that one time. No, they don't have to let you do it again. Exactly which part of this are you struggling to understand?
>>21172 Have you ever considered not buying a game on release? You save money, and you can sort the wheat from the chaff by letting all these other schmucks be your beta testers.
>>21173 Why do you want me to inconvenience myself and why are you supporting shitty practices by corporations that mislead people? How much do they pay you MrShill? Read up on consumer laws.
Because there is obviously some sort of metric that Steam uses to define abuse. >>21175 is probably being sensible and is only asking for refunds on a small portion of games. The people getting their accounts banned are almost certainly dip-shits who are buying tens of games a week and asking for a refund on almost every one.
I'm about 40 hours or so in and it's been a decent enough ride so far. Whether you're a fan of the classic FO games or the more recent TPS/FPS take on the series, there's a lot you'll be able to take from Fallout 4, but also a lot you'll miss. Let me be clear that this is very much a first-person shooter with "roleplaying" elements (stats and inventory systems, essentially).
PROS:
+ The gunplay is improved tenfold over the previous two iterations with the addition of iron-sights and full modification of every single weapon along with detailed stats - likewise for armour / apparel. Every wanted to go at a raider with a nail-studded rolling pin? Well now you can! The randomly-generated "legendary" weapons are a nice and often hilarious touch too.
+ The Commonwealth showcased in the various gameplay trailers is beautifully crafted with vibrant detail crammed into every nook. There are plenty of varying locations to visit and paths of entry to suit any play-style. Oh, and you scale skyscrapers now so that's quite nice.
+ The characters don't look like potatoes and are voiced by a myriad of actors so therefore are easier to actually give a damn about. They're also a great deal more varied with their own fleshed-out personalities, preferences, and skills you can call upon outside of combat.
CONS:
- This is still very much a Bethesda game and as such there is a limit to the amount of post-production polish you should expect. There a number of glitches - some game-breaking - that occur enough that it's any wonder they escaped their esteemed QA department.
- The dialogue system is dreadful. Really. The shortened options (now limited to 4 and mapped to the controller D-pad or keyboard arrows) have been revealed to be mostly identical and it's nowhere near the standard of Obsidian / Interplay. There are a few laugh-out-loud moments of pure apocalyptically dark comedy but don't expect it to the same degree as the original games.
- Your actions have little or no weight until late-game where you are forced to side with one of the four major factions. "Karma" and faction reputations are gone and only count for as much as your current companion's opinion and your progress towards unlocking their respective perks.
I'm having fun with it, but they've definitely tooled it to play more like an FPS. While this is obviously a good thing in general, it's left me, who played F3 and NV as a high perception and agility sniper, a little confused.
Specifically, a sniper scope will give me significantly less shots in VATS than a red dot sight on the same gun - the sights give 'more focus' which means a lower AP cost in VATS. So, do I sink all of my points into the new perks which make my FPS experience better, or sink them all into VATS perks and pretend I'm Simo Hayha, sniping without a scope?
Maybe the gap between VATS and real world shooting will lessen as I climb the levels, but right now it feels as though I have to build one way or the other. I can imagine using automatic weapons would work better in both systems, but that's just not how I like to play.
I miss the karma system, even though it felt a little broken in the previous two games (just give fifteen bottles of water to a homeless bloke and your sins are atoned!) A game as detailed as this is missing out by not having people bring up the shit you do more often.
I really like settlements, though I actually wish they were a bit less expensive to build, or at least more balanced in the way they're done. For example I can build an entire shack city with the amount of wood and steel I've incidentally stumbled across, but to string up a couple of lights is HOURS of looking for enough copper. Perhaps that's the harsh reality of the wasteland, but it gets in the way too much to make the settlement stuff a truly worthwhile distraction.
Bottom line is this game, despite its flaws, gives us all a lot to talk about, and it's not often these days a game will inspire me to even play it, let alone write paragraphs about it.
My solution to this issue was to play my sniper more as a stealth marksman.
Get a red dot sight on a nice semi-auto for medium range engagements, and have a high magnification scope on a bolt action that's tuned more for high damage. Typically I'll snipe a few baddies from long range before my cover is blown or it t starts to feel too tedious to wait for them to expose themselves again, and then sneak in and start cracking off headshots in VATS.
I've never liked using the sniper rifles in VATS anyway because the scope doesn't give you and increased accuracy or anything. It seems like using VATS with a sniper build always just results in frustration and rage when you watch the useless tosser put four bullets into the wall above an enemy's head despite the 75% chance to hit.
It's the same reason that all build IRL are some variant of stealth archery. It's the optimal way of winning without being killed to death.
In Beth games the skill systems favour it because it's the best way to be a slick killer without being an obnoxious tank type. Fallout basically offers you three choices- Brute, stealthbastard, or The Doctor.
Not strictly true. When making lists, you put an apostrophe after each item until the last item where instead of a comma you use and/or/then, etc. Cheese, bread and milk not cheese, bread, and milk. It's dodgy grammar, because you used both, but it's not terrible grammar or anything.
With the crack down in effect, it seemed worth mentioning.
>>21246 It's correct, but the people who dislike and/or are confused by the Oxford comma are likely to have even more of a moan than they do when you use one with 'and'. As you've just seen.
While doing my Christmas shopping a couple of weeks ago I popped into a GAME store in London to browse. I saw Trauma Center for the Wii for 99p and thought I'd snap it up. When I got to the till, the bloke gave me a Vault Boy Charisma Bobblehead as a free gift. I've just looked it up and it's going online for around £30. I got given a £30 collectible for purchasing a 99p game. The fuck?
Is it the, um, fallout from this promotion they were doing? I could see the bloke had a big box of them behind the till.