This Mod Wants to Fix Every Fallout 4 Bug

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
Why is everyone acting like this is some [https://www.nexusmods.com/morrowind/mods/19510/] new [https://www.nexusmods.com/oblivion/mods/5296/] thing [https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/19/] modders are doing?
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Charcharo said:
Lightknight said:
Chimpzy said:
Lightknight said:
Actually, these mod teams put out significant mods every game and it actually does tend to fix the major bugs.

I mean, I understand your skepticism. The first time I really encountered it I was playing Skyrim. As an experienced member of the software industry I rolled my eyes really hard at the unofficial patch then. But once I saw what it did, I realized that it's actually really that good.

It won't be every bug. A dev team won't fix every bug on a game like that no matter how much time they have. But they can do most of the relevant ones.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting the competence of those mod teams. I just pointed out they presumably have quite a challenge ahead of them, although their experience with the Creation Engine versions from previous games could probably help.

I wasn't being sarcastic when I said I admire their ambition.
The bugs in Fallout 4 are quite minor compared to previous titles in their release state. I'd honestly call this the most polished-at-launch Bethesda game I've ever played.

It's just that now we fully live in the internet age where if anything is wrong they go screaming on the internet and be heard since everyone has an elevated voice now, whereas even 6 years ago we'd only hear about it through word of mouth or a magazine subscription if it was notorious enough.

Fallout 4's bugs are not bad. The worst one I personally encountered was one where a settler would occasionally find himself inexplicably on top of a roof with no point to get down from. I just built a stair case and never had to care about that again. In Skyrim I had to stay in one town for the first 3 months of production because Bethesda fucked up asset allocation on the ps3 and loading more towns meant the game would start to crash. I was one of the few that figured that out early and got 60+ hours in the game without console failure. That one was so bad I actually built a gaming rig during that time period and gleefully installed the unofficial patch on the pc version to great effect.
You were just lucky truth be told.

You had few and not super severe bugs. Not what I saw on launch day, and no this is not me talking about the absolute amateurish stupidity of the PC port and its lack of FOV/Mouse Acceleration/Frame Lock and Vsync options. Those are a seperate issue.

FO4 was a worse experience for me than Skyrim. Which was bad (though better than Oblivion and FO3... and New Vegas, except NV is a far better game :( ).

It is great you were lucky, but it ain't the same for all around.
You claim I'm lucky. That may be so, but I'm claiming you're unlucky.

From the bug lists and everything like that, FO4 is significantly more polished and less buggy than a wide range of former games. That's just an empirical assessment of bug numbers and severity/priority of said bugs as compared to previous versions.

Keep in mind though, bugs get fixed over time. FO4 is not as polished as Skyrim is now. But it is more polished than Skyrim was at launch. So if you played Skyrim later in its life cycle then sure, you may have had a more polished experience. But at launch? Not even close.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Charcharo said:
I have a lot of PCs though... on which to test games or at least play them.

The list of what they are fixing is still not good enough. Not even close yet. Bethesda needs better talent, there is no other way for real progress to happen with them :(

The game I do like though.
I don't care if the game is good enough. That's a wholly subjective claim. What I am claiming is that FO4 is significantly more polished at launch than Skyrim and the previous generation's fallouts.

Skyrim in particular was one I tested extensively. That's why I was able to figure out the root cause of the problem on the PS3 before others did (hurray for asset category bloating that was exclusive to Sony's stupid proprietary garbage requirements to break assets up).
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Charcharo said:
Lightknight said:
Charcharo said:
I have a lot of PCs though... on which to test games or at least play them.

The list of what they are fixing is still not good enough. Not even close yet. Bethesda needs better talent, there is no other way for real progress to happen with them :(

The game I do like though.
I don't care if the game is good enough. That's a wholly subjective claim. What I am claiming is that FO4 is significantly more polished at launch than Skyrim and the previous generation's fallouts.

Skyrim in particular was one I tested extensively. That's why I was able to figure out the root cause of the problem on the PS3 before others did (hurray for asset category bloating that was exclusive to Sony's stupid proprietary garbage requirements to break assets up).
And I disagree. It is just as bad/good as Skyrim when it ShOULD have been MUCH better than it. It should have been more polished han Witcher 3, for example.

I was not talking about whether the game is good or not. Though you were the person that thought that gaming media and game critic's are a good indication of game quality? Not I :(
Depends, is quality where everything looks perfect from a technical perspective or is quality where the game is fun?

If you are familiar with the critics you are following then they are a good indicator because you know where their focus and bias lies. You know the critics that will artificially raise a score because there's a leading woman in it. You know the critics that hate everything you like. You know the critics who ignore technical polish and those who focus too much on it.

The most important thing to do is find critics who are consistent in their reviews so you can apply the filter of their bias to it in order to figure out if you'll like the game.

You had fun playing the game. That you're mad at the polish of it is kinda irrelevant to the quality of the game itself so much as an indictment of the half-assery of the studio.

The PS3 is irrelevant to me. No idea how anything on it is. It is a scam for super rich westerners anyway :(
At the time you could root the ps3 and have a pretty darn powerful machine. I mean, if you bought it at the starting price and never rooted it then yeah, pretty bad scam since you couldn't enjoy having a unix compatible fairly powerful machine at the time.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Charcharo said:
The PS3 was surpassed in a year. In 2-3 years it was becoming comparatively weak. I play the long game always :p, not the short term one.
Oh, that's right, because I remember that time I built a really powerful machine for only $600 and it never became comparatively weak (sarcasm intended as playful banter since you and I communicate privately).

I am mad that the studio does not learn from its mistakes. In this case, Bugout 4 completely deserves the metabombing IMHO. So in this case, the user score is correct unlike the critic score. Hell too bad it sold good. But at least Bethesda is losing mind-share.
Fallout 4 does not deserve that and isn't particularly buggy for an open world game. Again, your anger is with Bethesda and not the game itself. Metabombing the game is disingenuous and misleads customers looking for a review. Most frequently it ends up harming the development staff which may have just not been given enough resources by the publisher and metabombing it allows the publisher to keep even more money in their pocket.

The only way to ever mostly hurt the right people in this scenario is to not buy their game. But Fallout 4 is a lot of fun as you've acknowledged. So people are going to buy it.

Well good for your critics. I can only trust my friends. Who do you follow BTW :p?
I like a few reviewers in Gameinformer and Yahtzee is always good for a few laughs and some good points. I understand Jim and his background so I can use him for a good review too but he doesn't always tackle big-boy games. ProJared provides a pretty good run down in a short amount of time (he does a good job of prefacing with his bias and distinguishing between quality story vs quality gameplay vs quality coding). My only complaints with him is how much he likes Nintendo and how a 1-minute review becomes 3 minutes for some reason.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Charcharo said:
Well... remember I built PCs to last 6-7 years. Not 2-3, not 4-5. Six or seven years. I know that and... the PS3 does not fit my requirements. Unfortunately. Just too weak and expensive with no pros bar ease of use which is a moot point to me anyway.
What? The ps3 lasted the whole time. 2006-2013 (and I'm told by some that it lasted longer than that too). 7 years. That's one of the benefits of consoles, that developers specifically QA and engineer for their games to fit and work on the consoles. So a $600 pc you built in 2006 sure as hell wouldn't have played Skyrim but the ps3 did.

You know me, we both work with computers and have gaming rigs. But I'm going to give credit where it's due. The ps3 was an excellent machine at the time for the cost if you were willing to pay for it. The consumer market at the time just wasn't up to dropping that much more than normal. To be frank, it was a relatively cheap or average priced Blu-ray player at the time too which was ridiculous that Blu-ray players were that expensive.

Did Bethesda not act badly towards Obsidian for Fallout New Vegas? I remember something about the scores and the buginess of that game.
Also this happens every time they release a game. Repeatable. And it is much worse than most other Open World games (provided some are worse games, but then again I am a literature elitist after all... everything is worse :()
We've (you and I) already discussed this. It isn't worse than other games. There are only a handful of companies that deliver on this scale and complexity anyways and so far only Witcher 3 seemed to pull really it off on such a large scale. Most games of this scale have these kinds of ridiculous bugs at launch. They all just patch them over the first few months leading up to the expansions.

It is a lot of fun. A stupid game, but a very fun one! True. But it is good that people are tired of that BS and will hold them accountable the next time... I hope.
I don't think so. The computer and gaming literate live in a sort of bubble. Fallout 4 made so much more money that previous games and the next iteration will probably make even more. I have absolutely zero confidence in the claim that anyone has learned their lesson. And besides, while being the same price as other games it was still more enjoyable than the vast majority of titles released around that time. Ergo, the opportunity cost per dollar was remarkably low if not negative.

As for me... yeah I got a really good price on it, but I learned my lesson.
You told me you had fun with it. Did you not get an equitable amount of fun out of it?