Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Fallout 4

If it was open world you wouldn't have this problem. You just crack on with something else.

How does Skyrim manage it? There's a problem in keeping a game challenging for beginning characters and levelled up superheroes in truly "open world" games like what you're talking about. Oblivion had level scaling so you ended up with bandits in full glass plate with obsidian magical swords wandering about. Doesn't Skyrim have different difficulty monsters in different areas? I can't remember.

I found this about Fallout 3...

This is how Fallout 3s level scaling works:

The first important change is that creatures never scale up in abilities to match your level, so each Deathclaw in F3 will always have the same attributes, regardless of your character’s level when you have the misfortune of encountering it.

Second, each territory in the game is now assigned an encounter level that determines the level and equipment of critters when you discover that area, so a first-level character that wanders into an area designated as “encounter level 5*; will be badly outmatched by the inhabitants. Loot is also generally scaled to the area’s encounter level, but some item items will be hand-placed, which is similar to how Morrowind handled loot.
An area’s level doesn’t remain static, but it gets locked as soon as you enter it. If you enter a city block designated as a level 5 area, it will remain a level 5 area and never scale up in difficulty. Areas you haven’t yet encountered do “tether up” in difficulty level, but the tethering level doesn’t linearly scale with your level, so there’s still an advantage to gaining experience levels.

The city block that’s initially designated as a level 5 area will tether up and be designated as a level8 area if you don’t wander into it until you’re a level 15 character. But since an area’s level is locked once you enter it, you’ll still get the satisfaction of returning to a previously difficult area and annihilating its residents once you have a more powerful character.

Bethesda’s still tweaking these systems, but they should make exploration more interesting and not diminish the regard for advancement by making you feel like you can never really get ahead. I’d still prefer a static world like Gothic’s, where encounters are always consistent regardless of your character level, but this toned-down scaling system sounds like a huge improvement over Oblivions.

Incidentally, I've searched for blocked areas of the map and I can't find anything? It's been a long time since I've played it though.
 
Last edited:
The scaling in Oblivion really broke the game for me. Part of the RPG thing surely is getting to an area where you're not high enough level for it and, um, bravely running away and coming back to it when you are and clearing it.

Skyrim I think handled it by everything levelling up, but levels for areas being set by the first time you you access the area, so you get to a dungeon at say a low level, and it would be set to that low level for the rest of the game. That was better, but I didn't like that unique items levelled too...

Fallout's approach was better.

*eta* so it sounds like they took the fallout leveling thing and applied it to skyrim.
 
Yeah, it looks like an evolution from Oblivion --> Fallout3 --> Skyrim.

From what I can see of Skyrim it's pretty similar. Areas lock when you enter, enemy types are dependent on your level.

New Vegas had more of a traditional system where harder enemies inhabited specific areas.

Old D&D modules were rated according to level (i.e. 1-3, 4-6 etc.). A game like these are really collections of modules, so you need a way to get people into the "right" areas, or change the areas themselves to allow proper exploration without blocking off content. Predictable which way Bethesda went ;)
 
I dislikes alot of things about Skyrim. The archery system was a bit too fincky, sword play was just button mashing, and spell casting was only the interesting thing.

And dragon slaying was far too easy.

I'm paying F NV again. Got myself the rat slayer unique sniper rifle, going to head over to the powder gangers and start knocking them off one by one.

The other thing I liked about Fallout NV was and this comes up on the feminist tropes things. There are really excellent strong female NPCs. Rose, and Veronica are by far the most fun companions they both have complex quests that aren't damsel in distress type things, and they've both got excellent voice acting and dialogue.
 
Last edited:
So when do we start breaking out the tea leaves and predicting when the release date will be?

I'll start: roughly the same time as No Mans Sky, so that I have to choose between the two or eating.


(Gameing will win everytime. I can survive on lidl bread and peanut butter)
 
I saw an Amazon page yesterday that had December 15 on it? Might have been a mockup though... Let me have a look.

Edit: nah, nothing on there.

I'd guess before Xmas. Skyrim was November.
 
Xbox 1: £300
Big telly: £350

Would I be a dick spending £650 just to play this?
Are you never ever going to buy another X-box game or watch anything else on the telly? Do you not have a desktop you could shove a better graphics card in and connect up to the big telly?
 
Are you never ever going to buy another X-box game or watch anything else on the telly? Do you not have a desktop you could shove a better graphics card in and connect up to the big telly?
I've only a tiny Lenovo laptop with a clit. I don't really want to have a big telly in my room, bit I would watch iPlayer and use Chromecast on it for sure.
 
Last gen I got a 360 because it felt like the proper gaming machine, rather than the media hybrid. I liked the exclusives. I don't think I became loyal to them, but I certainly had the impression that the 360 was the better of the two if you simply wanted to game.

I eventually got a PS3 and have never used it much for gaming. In fact, the only game I've played all the way through on it is Heavy Rain.

But now, I'd get PS4 over an XBone in an instant. It just seems like such the better deal. It probably isn't, and it's likely just a shift in my perceptions, but there's very little that interests me about an XBone now.
 
exactly it's a better console, and the fact that Naughty Dog (who I think are easily in the top 5 for dev teams in the world) are doing exclusives on it is enough for me.

Having said that I've not got one... but I''m very tempted and TLoU 2 will push me over (still will be doing FO4 on a pc though).
 
Only reason to be fair I am considering an Xbox One is only for competitive play for that shoot em up game.

For release date lottery, I'll go 19th November.
 
How could PS4 or a PC be better than an X-Box?

I can't see myself playing games on a computer, as I'd have to get a desktop. But playing games on one of those just seems wrong.
 
I've always used consoles for gaming, never a PC.

We've been holding off getting a PS4 as there weren't enough games that appealed to us but now....plus I believe the newest FF game will be PS4 only and Mr.QofG's likes that pointy hat stuff!
 
How could PS4 or a PC be better than an X-Box?

I can't see myself playing games on a computer, as I'd have to get a desktop. But playing games on one of those just seems wrong.

It depends on your preferences and abilities. For example, a lot of people find FPS games far easier on the PC. Easier in the sense that you can be more precise. For competitive play, PC would win out, because of that precision. I know I deal with any kind of first person game a lot better on the PC, for a different reason. Being closer to the screen (I use a laptop) makes me feel less disoriented than when playing on a large tv screen. I still made it through 2 Dead Spaces and a Bioshock on the 360, but if I wanted to play them again I'd get them on PC. Using a keyboard and mouse for movement can seem counter-intuitive if you're used to gamepads, but it quickly becomes second nature, and I find gamepads more awkward now. Even games where you're warned "you really want to connect your controller for this one" I find myself happier with kb&m. (I had quite the induction into kb&m play -- playing Half Life 2 on a mac with a magic mouse ^^)

Secondly, mods! You can't mod a console version. And some games become completely different beasts when modded. Bethesda games in particular. Everything from texture overhauls to make up for some of the shittiest textures known to humankind, to gameplay overhauls that introduce new levelling systems, new enemies, new areas, new combat. Not to mention unofficial patches, which fix all those annoyingly game breaking things the devs never bother to fix.

So, it's not wrong at all to play games on PC. There have been games on PCs since there have been games and PCs. It just comes down to what you want out of your games, and what you find convenient. And of course, if you already have a PC or laptop that can handle games (which I know you don't have) it seems false economy to go out and buy a console if you're not actually all that bothered about platform.
 
It just seems against my instincts to play on a keyboard and not look at a massive telly. I'm not nerdy enough to bother with mods. I play Minecraft with my 9 year old nephew over Skype on my laptop and he got exasperated with me and won't play with me until I've read Minecraft For Dummies :oops:
 
It just seems against my instincts to play on a keyboard and not look at a massive telly. I'm not nerdy enough to bother with mods. I play Minecraft with my 9 year old nephew over Skype on my laptop and he got exasperated with me and won't play with me until I've read Minecraft For Dummies :oops:

Set up desktop to TV, get gaming control for desktop, problem solved! :D
 
PC's easier for the sound as well. I know some of these modern teles have really good output, but its easier to wire up a cheapo sub woofer and co to a PC. Sound is important to me in a game. I like hearing drips and muttered conversations- the satisfying clic-chunk of loading a weapon and dealing out gunishment.
 
I used to be dead against controllers, until I got an xbox 360 controller for the pc, and well, even in FPS I think I now slightly prefer it, just because it's so much more comfortable to use. Obviously things like Company of Heroes would be rubbish with a controller, but....
 
Decent headphones achieve that too of course.

Indeed. I use headphones with my laptop (previous version of these). They weren't too pricey, are very lightweight (scarily plastic, but despite dropping them lots they've not broken yet and I've had them 2.5 years), not too tight, adjustable, and the sound is nice and rich (to my uneducated ears, at least). Microphone works well (I use Skype with someone who has the same pair, so I know what it sounds like on the receiving end).

I used to be dead against controllers, until I got an xbox 360 controller for the pc, and well, even in FPS I think I now slightly prefer it, just because it's so much more comfortable to use. Obviously things like Company of Heroes would be rubbish with a controller, but....

I caved in and decided to use my 360 controller with Dragon Age: Inquisition. I was happy enough using kb&m, but I was hearing from people all over the shop -- many of whom were diehard kb&m users -- that it really was so much better with a controller.

Turns out you can't connect a plug'n'play 360 controller to a PC. I'm not buying a new one just for that.

fml :D
 
Back
Top Bottom