DocClox

I hate the fact that there are dialogue topics where all four choices give the same spoke line and the same outcome.

I hate the fact that they used that stupid dialogue wheel to try and hide the fact.

I hate that someone either thought we'd never notice, or else they just didn't care what we thought.

I hate the way that, more and more, it's starting to look like someone at Beth just didn't give a toss about this one, and pushed it out the door as cheaply and quickly as possible.

I hate the fact that there are good people at Bethesda are drawing hate for this game; developers who did they best they could to make this a good game and who, sabotaged from the start, never had a chance to do it right.

1 hour ago, Darkening Demise said:

I feel like I'm playing Far Cry: Post Apocalyptic Edition-NOT Fallout!

Nah. nah, nah, nah, nah. Far Cry was fun. Far Cry 3 was fun. Pity they never made a Far Cry 2, really.

But yeah: congrats to CDProjekt for a well earned award. And maybe, just maybe, this will be a wake up call to Bethesda.

12 hours ago, zippy57 said:

I was only citing them to directly dispute the claim that Fallout 4 had suffered lower rating scores due to design decisions.

I was actually addressing the comments to Aria. I probably should have quoted something for context.

11 hours ago, bjornk said:

Honest opinions of others having similar tastes may be useful when all you care about is whether or not you'll be having fun with a game or movie

We're talking about games. All I care about is whether or not I'll be having fun. Because that's why I play games. Why do you play games if you're not interested in having fun? I'm genuinely curious.

11 hours ago, bjornk said:

but then you don't need professionals to tell you that.

True. I could just buy it, play it for thirty minutes, and then uninstall it, incinerate the installation media and scatter the ashes far and wide saying "Why oh why did I waste so much time and money on this woeful piece of donkey excrement? Oh, if only there were some way of evaluating whether I was likely to enjoy a game prior to making a purchase!"

I'm not entirely sure how that would be an improvement over some honest reviews, however.

11 hours ago, bjornk said:

To give you an example, if a previous game only had two player co-op mode and this new game has eight, that's a significant improvement. 

Not to me - I don't play co-op. If they've spent that much time working on multiplayer then the chances are that the single player game has been neglected.

So while the number of co-op slots may be an objective metric, whether or not this constitutes an improvement is still somewhat subjective I'm afraid. 

9 hours ago, bjornk said:

There's a difference between "just an opinion" and an informed opinion supported with facts. Otherwise, "This game is shit! 1/10" would be a review.

Actually, "this game is shit!" would be an 8/10 score by current review practices.

To get 1/10 it would need to be something like "This game installed a keylogger on my computer and emptied my bank account after which it began serving kiddie porn. It then posted insulting cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed to several social media sites giving my full name and address in each case. Finally, it hacked into NORAD missile command and instituted Global Armageddon. I am chiseling this review into tablets of radioactive granite in the hopes that, should civilization ever arise again, our successors will have more sense than to load this turkey onto their computers. 1/10"

7 hours ago, bjornk said:

An opinion is also an informed judgement. If an opinion is merely a baseless personal belief you wouldn't value some opinions over the others. 

OK, so let's see how that works in practice. 

"I like bananas" is a baseless personal belief, apparently.

"I like bananas because they taste all banana-ey" is an informed judgement since it based on verifiable fact.

Therefore my liking of bananas has now been elevated to an objective fact, which (if I understand your logic correctly) means that you also like bananas and so does everyone else on the planet because my banana review was fact based and therefore objective. 

You know, somehow I don't think it works like that.

1 hour ago, zippy57 said:

I was essentially asking, in your case, "why is a high score from a reviewer automatically a semi-bribery situation? Are they not allowed to like games?"

They are allowed to like games, and I'm sure at least some of them like F4. On the other hand, since no one gives bad reviews any more it's almost impossible to tell "I enjoyed this quite a lot" from "I'd have had more fun gnawing through my left wrist".

The point is that you can't really cite the game reviews in support of either viewpoint. Good games get good reviews and bad games get good reviews. Sometimes you can read between the lines a little, but in general, game reviews constitute a null signal and can be safely ignored.

25 minutes ago, bjornk said:

Whether or not a game is fun to play should not be a factor when rating/reviewing a game, especially in professional reviews, as that is very subjective

I disagree. If I read a film review, I want to know if I'll have fun watching the film. Over time I get to know which reviewers are close enough to my tastes that I can trust their opinion and which ones like different sorts of films to me.

For my money, that's how it should be in a games review. I want to know if the reviewer had a good time. I want their honest opinion. They may choose to analyse the literary roots of the work, put it into perspective against the earlier offerings in the series, or just talk about how big the boobs are on the female characters - I don't care. At the end of the day I want to know if they played 20 hours solid and wanted to play more, or if they played for an hour and were bored silly the entire time. I don't care if it's subjective, as long as it's an honest opinion.

1 hour ago, zippy57 said:

There are people on this very site who enjoy the game. Are they being paid to say its good too?

No Zippy, I do not believe that they are.

1 hour ago, zippy57 said:

Are they trying to score free review copies?

Since I evidently wasn't clear, I'm talking about the professional game review sites. The ones who do receive advance review copies so they can get the reviews out promptly. Honestly, I didn't think that was even controversial any more.

1 hour ago, zippy57 said:

Don't they have just as much right to like the game as you have to dislike it?

Why yes, Zippy, I believe they do have just as much right to like a game as I do to dislike it. By all means, point out the passage where you thought I said anything different.

1 hour ago, zippy57 said:

Why is it suddenly a conspiracy when someone disagrees with you?

We have a body of professionals who depend for their income to a large extent on the good will of the game studios. I hardly think we need imagine special handshakes and secret decoder rings to see how they might have a shared financial incentive to frame the games they review in the best possible light.

Games reviews have been pretty much worthless for years. The reviewers don't want to hurt sales for the big releases or they risk not getting any more free review copies of games and suddenly they have to find another job. So they accentuate the positive and rate games between 7.5 (destroyed my computer) to 10.0 (actually rather fun).

Honestly, I'm more sad than angry by this stage. Maybe mod and DLC will indeed save the day. I can't say I'm feeling any great enthusiasm for future Beth releases though.

6 hours ago, Aria said:

wouldnt mind if they just droped you in the middle of wasteland and go do you own story, but the game doesnt offer anything deeper, its just a shallow shooter now.

I don't mind shallow shooters. Every now and again I get burned out modding Beth games to the point where I can't bear to even look at them. When that happens I usually end up playing Borderlands. Borderlands is great: anything that remotely gets in the way of running around the desert and shooting guns and bandits and monsters has been scrapped. The game has all the depth of an oil film on a very shallow puddle and I just love it.

The problem with FO4 is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. Beth keep dumbing down their games on the apparent basis that "more stupid == more sales", but their core audience are still basically role-players, so they can't just release "Borderout 1" and be done with it. And so we get something that doesn't really work on either level.

58 minutes ago, chrono20x said:

Makeing good games dont matter as long as you pay other people to sell the shit for you. We lost control the game makers treat us like cattle

It kind of reminds me of Terminator 3. When it came out, everyone told me what a brilliant film it was and said I should see it. For various reasons, I ended up not getting it until it had been out on DVD for a year or so. And I thought it was rubbish. So I said this to the people who'd been singing the film's praises, and most of them said "yeah, it was kind of crap, really".

You can't really judge the reception of a game while the hype train is running.  Wait until the holiday season is over. That's when we'll find out what most people really thought of the game.

8 hours ago, bjornk said:

Hope I'm reading it wrong, but are you suggesting that Bethesda bought Fallout in order to "save" it?

I'm saying "Far Cry 2 was an unremarkable shooter that would have sank without trace without fan loyalty". As I suspect would FO4 had Beth decided to market it under a new title.

Which hopefully now makes sense in the context of chrono20x' last comment

6 hours ago, chrono20x said:

Yes but there is a point where gamers and modders need to put their foot down.I mean these guys are acting like gamers are dumbass Cattle to the slaughter . They know what they were doing when they put this trash out

Yes, I know the argument. I've made it a few time myself.

The trouble is that crowds learn slowly. The trouble for corporations like Beth is that they do learn. Beth are currently doing a Mozilla; they started as the plucky underdog that dared to do it right and made it work for them, and now they're jettisoning all that cool stuff to try and be another soulless game corp in hope of replicating EA's profits.I honestly believe it'll hurt them in the end, but in the meantime they're so much money they can't see any downsides for all the dollar signs in the way.

That's not to excuse them, just a sad reflection on the way the world works.

Meanwhile, as a modder, much as I might hate some of the design decisions here, I do want to play with the creation tools. Assuming they're halfway usable to make more than radiant fetch and carry quests or change the stats of a few guns, anyway.

5 hours ago, bjornk said:

If you were going to fuck with its lore unashamedly then why did you even need Fallout?

Same reason Far Cry 2 needed to license the Far Cry brand. It was an unremarkable shooter that would have sank without trace without fan loyalty. And while there are many that will defend the game even now, I think the speed with which the franchise reverted to more familiar setting and play style beas out the point.

Well ... there are a lot of folks out there who love the setting and would like to be able to play and enjoy the game. And some folks just like to mod, some will take the state of the MQ as a personal affront (I suppose I'm one of them) and some of us have ideas for mods if the game ever becomes playable.

And despite its many flaws, I still think there's a lot to like here. The crafting amd settlement systems have potential, as do the synths.

And personally, I'd love to do some LL style modding in a Fallout setting. FO3 neber really got the love, NV I didn't entirely get on with myself... but i still have hopes for FO4

@coop: yeah, any real alt start mod neds to also be an MQ overhaul as well. It's a big job, no question.

I think it'll probably happen - too many people loathe the whole "where's my baby" routine. It probably won't happen soon though :(

Actually, I had my first decent session on this game over the weekend. Plannes, snuck, sniped and laid ambushes. It finally startrd to gel.

Then I ran for cover in diamond city during a radstorm and it crashed hard. I think I'll need to reinstall.

But yeah, there are mods i'd like to see and/or make. Like using synth tech to build custom companions, or adding some slave management facilities to the settlements.

A decent altertative start would help a lot thoug

Well, having sorted out the mouse lag issues, I find the game is playable ... but remains oddly uncompelling. I've been and killed off a couple of insect nests,wiped out some ghouls and scragged some raiders .. and I'm still not feeling it.

My biggest problem is still that ... I'm not really interested.

Usually with a Beth game, I project myself into the role. This is what I want to do in the wasteland, these are my goals. It's all a bit egotistical perhaps, but where's the point in role-play of you can't indulge yourself?

The problem that I'm having is that this toon isn't me. I mean that's made quite clear from the start. It's not me, and it's not really anyone I can project my identity onto. And that wouldn't be so bad if the character they gave us was in some way cool or interesting, but they're not. So I can't get into it in a "let's see what Geralt of Rivia does if I head this way" either. I played for about an hour last night and then gave up, bored. Maybe I should chase down the MQ a bit. You shouldn't have to though. I was planning on staying up at the north end of the map and grinding some xp. In FO3 that'd be a viable strategy. In 4, it's a tossup whether my toon dies of boredom or suicidal depression brought on by the radio DJ.

The other thing that could have saved the day is the settlement building. But ... ok I 've got to run around the settlement, find the melon patches, harvest melons to plant melons, then run around and find settlers to water them, remember which settlers are looking after which plants, and hope that I'm not taking someone away from a useful plot or settlement function. And every time I think about that, I find I'd sooner go and ill some pointless ghouls for no good reason.

I dunno, maybe I should leave the damn thing alone and do something else for a bit.

44 minutes ago, Aria said:

Yeah im not saying the devs are bad, usually its the people who are in charge of the whole thing that dont give a rats ass.

I know. I just feel sorry for the guys that do the work sometimes. The probably worked their assess off, and had some great ideas and had the whole thing sabotaged because Bethesda management lets its marketing department write the program specifications.

Honestly, they're getting as bad a Microsoft in that respect

5 hours ago, zippy57 said:

 I hadn't realized that could come off that way. I was expanding on that point to make it clear just how sketchy Bethesda's position would be if they tried to pull that.

Meh, it's all right. Probably just me being grumpy first thing in the morning. I should know better than to post before I've had my first cup of coffee.

Still, it is concerning. If Beth are the sole copyright holders they can spam DMRC takedowns on anything containing an ESP. They don't target the modders, just the distributing sites. Even F4SE is vulnerable to the extent that they distribute modified versions of the Papyrus classes.

Didn't they try this before with Skyrim? I have a vague memory of a big stink over Beth doing something like this and eventually doing a U-turn on the subject.

3 hours ago, Coopervane said:

Why is this suddenly such a hard to understand argument? It certainly wasen't a year ago when everyone and their Dog was complaining about how annoying it is to mod Skyrim.

Is the problem Gamebryo or the Creation Kit? Or the fact that Beth didn't (or couldn't) distribute half their development tools this time around?

4 hours ago, Aria said:

Seven years wasnt enough?

Well, apparently not

I don't know. I've corresponded with some of the Skyrim devs on the Beth Creation Kit forum and they all seem like decent guys. I'd sooner assume that they were given over-ambitious targets than that they all sat around twiddling their thumbs for six years. 

Different subject entirely: It's amazing how much more playable this sucker gets when you edit the init files and turn off mouse acceleration:

Before:

Whoops! I'm being shot at, turn around, see raider, point gun, watch gobsmacked as toon continues to rotate through a further 60 degrees, Get shot several times. Turn back, point gun again, watch as toon continues to rotate, get shot several times. Turn back and activate VATS as raider passes. Point gun at raider head and watch as gun continues to move. Get shot several times in slow motion. Shut down game in disgust.

After:

Get shot at, turn around, see raider, point gun, four rounds in head, raider fall over. Result!

I'm still some way away from actually liking the game, but that's at least playable. Why the hell did they distribute the stupid thing with those settings? It's insane.

5 hours ago, zippy57 said:

In other words, anything made with software Bethesda did not provide (or that was provided in the same installer as Fallout 4, oddly) is not subject to these terms. So technically, while you'd have a heck of a time proving it, if you make a mod entirely in FO4Edit Bethesda holds no rights to it and cannot prevent you from charging for it. It was the same for Skyrim's CK; the EULA for the CK only covered things created with the CK, so any mod made without utilizing the CK is not actually restricted by the EULA. Sad truth is you probably won't win that argument in a court, but it's true. However, there's no way Bethesda could argue that a texture or a .dll was made using the modtools because it is not possible to make those things with the modtools and there is therefore no way to stretch the EULA to cover them.

Zippy, you're agreeing with me. Why so belligerent?

5 hours ago, Aria said:

Its not just the stuff that isnt visible, lots of other things make you question where all the effort went... well probably to codsworth voicing those 1k popular names.

Probably we'll find there's a ton of cool stuff that they ran out of time to finish. In Skyrim there was the Windhelm Arena, the City of Winterhold and the Civil War for instance.

1 hour ago, zippy57 said:

Users are rights holders, but they don't have the ability to ignore that term of the EULA.

Perhaps I didn't phrase that particularly clearly.

The term "rights holder" here refers to the intellectual property rights. As in the copyright to the mods. It's a fairly conventional use of the term when discussing IP issues.

As such, users don't have any rights in this context, except those explicitly granted to them by the rights holders, which according to the licence text you quoted is Bethesda.

Moreover modders don't have any rights over the materials they create, except those Beth allow them since they agree to transfer those when they make "modified game materials". How well that'll stand up in court is perhaps debatable.  You could argue that a wholly new texture or a dll framework like F4SE would be wholly original and therefore not covered. Of course, it's likely to be decided by who can afford the lawyers fees and for how long.  The bottom line is, if you want to use the CK, you're going to have to agree to their terms.

Now if we accept that Beth own the rights to modder created material, they can those assign rights how they like. If they want to waive restrictions in your case, for example, and  let you charge for your own mods, then they'd be entirely within their rights to do so. And if they want to exempt themselves from the conditions they impose on others, they are similarly within their rights.

I hope that's a little clearer.

55 minutes ago, zippy57 said:

"Customized Game Materials must be distributed solely for free"

 

So... that's something, right?

Not really. As rights holder they can distribute the work under whatever terms they see fit. The restriction only applies to other people. So if they did decide to return to paid mods, they could not only do it but also C&D the original author to stop distributing.

I suspect that the point of them taking full ownership for themselves is to avoid the situation where some modders refused to licence their material for use in paid mods. All those "forever free" banners are noble enough, but under the terms of the FO4 licence they don't mean a damn thing.

*sigh*

The only reason I'm still playing this damn game is the prospect of setting up a settlement based on slave labour. Of course, this new licence also means they can C&D anyone making mods that they think brings the game into disrepute. So if they get pressure about rape mods, lets say, Beth can withdraw your rights to distribute your own work and then hit LL with a DMCA notice for distributing copyright material without permission.

The crowd over at the geek feminist wiki are going to have a field day with this.

31 minutes ago, Z0mBieP00Nani said:

I find the V.A.TS. system hard to use, so I usually just don't, but maybe that's only because I play with a controller, even still though I've played other games with similar targeting mechanics that just felt right, so that's not much of an excuse.

Nah. I play with a mouse and the VATS still sucks. I can just shoot and spend most of the combat trying to draw a bead on the bad guys, or I can engage VATS and spend most of my time trying to line up headshots and either targeting legs or I'm still drawing circles when they kill me.

Not that headshots seem to help. Never mind deathclaws, even bloodbugs seem to have battleship armour around their head.

I swear, I'm about at the end of my patience with this one.

On 15 November 2015, Content Consumer said:

Dude... you should seriously start writing a playthrough blog. I mean, I'd read it. 

Thanks! I was thinking about that. I just don't get enough game time at the moment.

On 11/11/2015, 4:00:37, TheFemshep said:

I'm winning this contest fools. Try and stop me.

 

  Hide contents

 

So, basically, you're RPing this one as Judge Hershey? I hope you gave her hubby a suitable Dredd-like chin.

5 hours ago, Aleanne said:

I heard that the head is very well protected. Try to aim for the belly.

Heh. One of the first lessons I learned from FO3: Don't shoot a man in the head - it'll only make him angry. Blow his leg off for a sure fire kill

Quote

Also, I don't think it's possible to defeat him in melee, even with the PA. What I did was moving inside one of the buildings - the one near the plutonium well is fine - go upstairs and fire at him from there. He can't enter the building, so he can't hurt you.

Got there eventually. Sat on the balcony on the coffee shop on the corner and hosed the sucker down. Dethy realises he's not going to get me so runs off and hides. I try and hide (in power armour on a balcony) and eventually Dethy forgets I'm there and comes wandering back to the main street. I hose him down again, he runs and hides... repeat for a round an hour of real time, with only Travis the Suicidally Depressed DJ to alleviate the boredom. I do hope there's a quest to cheer him up at some point. I'd like to think no one was daft enough to believe that would be bearable for the entire game.

Eventually, having used all the power in the suit and almost all the bullets, Dethy finally collapses. Deathclaws are supposed to be quite intelligent, so I'm guessing that Travis was having the same effect on him as he was on me, and that Dethy had come to see being gunned down in a hail of bullets as a blessed, merciful release.

I take a moment to mourn the plight of the Deathclaw and then jump down to loot the bodies. Apparently the lack of fusion power doesn't stop me gathering three times my own body weight of loot.

Back in the Museum, Mama Murphy the Magic Junkie has been abusing substances again. She's seen a vision of a safe place which by some strange coincidence turns out the be the place you just came from. But wait, there's more! It turns out that the Holy Pink Elephants have granted hew Knowledge of the Main Quest. Yes, she knows all about the stupid little brat I've been trying to forget and nothing will do except that she talks about it. "Shaun? Where is he? I need to find him" my character says. I can only assume that the words "so I can roast the little brat over a slow fire" were omitted due to a bug. Typical Bethesda, eh?

Back at sanctuary I take off the power armour, totally fail to hang it on the rack, and then spend sometime randomly expending resources to no obvious gain as I try to work out how to use the crafting system. Later I discover I'm carrying around a power armour arm and leg. Hey, this is cool. Why'd they bother giving me the suit? I could have made a better one from scratch just scavvying resources from the town. But I guess that might have cheapened the experience in a way that saying "hey, there's a suit of PA and a mingun up on the roof" did not. I suppose...

Then I talk to the weirdo whose fashion sense got stuck in 1776, watch as my experience points arrive in real time (one second per point) and choose a new perk - firearms related this time. If I ever have to kill another deathclaw I want to finish the process before senile dementia sets in. Still, at least that way I'd finally be able to forget about the whole "OMG! Where's My Baby? WHERE'S MY BABY?" business. It may well be the only way I'm allowed to forget about it.

Shortly afterwards, I get the closest thing to actual fun I've had in this game so far: I talk to Sturges about helping out. "Do I look like a carpenter to you?" my toon asks, standing there clad only in bra, panties, a gasmask and some odd item consisting mainly of straps and copper spirals. I decide that the plot so far makes sense, if I just assume that it's all been purely to set me up for this punchline. Only my inability to work out how to take screenshots prevents this from being a Perfect Moment.  Later on, I check my inventory and discover that I am apparently wearing clothes, it's just that the steampunk contraption on my chest seems to have turned them invisible. All we need now is a mod that minaturises it somewhat. Maybe turns it into a ring, or or beauty spot or something...

Later on, I discover that you actually can break down all those old beds and cars and like. Apparently the workbench in a magical one (it's probably been sniffing Mama Murphy's chems) and can teleport to you wherever there is crafting to be done. I recycle a few beds, rugs and rusting cars and then make a bed and quickly sleep in it before someone else can beat me to it. Finally, I get a chance to do what I've wanted to do since that first radroach half chewed my toon's arm off.

To be fair, the crafting system is the first thing so far that got me thinking "this could be fun". I just wish I didn't have to battle with the UI for each individual click.

8 hours ago, cossayos said:

The inventory was always a pain in the hindparts. I don't think they changed that. It looks absolutely the same as it had in the previous two games.

Previous one was full screen and could be navigated with the keyboard.  I'm playing FO3 at the moment (FO4 has whetted my appetite for some Fallout it seems) and it's a lot easier to use. Mind, not having to draw slow circles around the option that I want to click on helps somewhat.

Is there a particular build you need to get past that deathclaw? Tried it four times now. I know it's coming, use VATS to unload all my action points into the damn things's head, then back away as fast as I can while hosing it down. It methodically kills everyone in sight and the wanders over nonchalantly and kills me in about three swipes.  I've got a build based around Int, Agility and Luck in that order so I should be reasonably good with a shooter. Or did I just miss the magic perk combination needed?

5 minutes ago, jxm said:

I really don't get why this is a problem for people ... it is a evil tease by Bethesda at best, and a clever one as well.  Giving the players a taste of Power Armor, how powerful you are (killing weak Raiders, yeah, eat this!), how challenging still other enemies will be (Deathclaw), and how limited this power still is (you need fusion cores and repair the suit). They could tell it via onscreen messages or some shit, but this way, its show don't tell, a nice way to introduce the player to a new concept of the game, and gives them something to look forward to while exploring the Wasteland...

Or they could have left it out of the first few missions entirely. Old hands would have something to look forward to, new players would have a pleasant surprise and the whole thing wouldn't have seemed like a cheap stunt. I mean I knew about the armour and the minigun in advance; the deathclaw thought just seems like they're taking the piss.

I know the theory that it's just a taste/teaser. I don't know if it's true or just damage control from Beth PR. If it is supposed to be a tease then I can authoratatively report that in at least one case it didn't work. Mainly because it just came across as a cheap stunt.

Still, their hearts were pure and their intentions just and that's all that matters, right?

5 minutes ago, jxm said:

But its the hate thread, it needs to grow of course so...yeah, I really hate the inventory-system

The trouble is that anything other than breathless adoration seems to get labelled as hate. Not entirely enthusiastic about the new pallet? Haters gotta hate. Mildly skeptical about the new skill system? Haters gotta hate. I'd be nice to have somewhere  to bitch about those features we perceive as flaws without some doubtless well intentioned defender of the faith coming in and labeling us all as being defined entirely by one negative emotion. Not that you're necessarily doing that, obviously. But there have been plenty that have taken that position. Which is why this thread exists, really.

6 hours ago, Content Consumer said:

The whole "FO4 is FPS not RPG" argument ties in neatly with the consoles-vs-PC thing too. I can't speak to that directly, because I haven't bought FO4 and don't intend to for at least a year, but it's occasionally amusing to listen in on the various shouted pro and con arguments.

You know, I've always thought that was a false dichotomy. RPGs are where you design a character and choose a background and then play that part in the setting provided. FPS is a presentation format. Just saying.

6 hours ago, Content Consumer said:

Identical engine, one or two minor tweaks. In my opinion, FNV is a very good example of what a large team of dedicated modders can do to a game... they took Fallout 3 and made a western Total Conversion.

*snork* Can't argue with that :)

6 hours ago, Content Consumer said:

The only character types/playstyles that worked well for me in:

Morrowind: Warrior

Oblivion: Warrior or rogue

Skyrim: Warrior, rogue, mage

By extrapolation, by Elder Scrolls 6 I'll finally be able to play a Cleric, and by Elder Scrolls 29 I'll get to play a half-ogre multiclassed bard-monk!

Oddly enough:

Morrowind: Monk/Mage

Oblivion: Mage/Rogue

Skyrim: Pure mage (leaning heavily on invisibility) or light armour dual wield beserker.

Which isn't to say I haven't had fun with other builds (back when the game actually supported builds, that is) but those are the ones I've had most fun with.

Changing the subject entirely: half an hour in and you get power armour, a minigun, and a fight with a deathclaw. I mean seriously? Someone in marketing wanted to make sure all the brand recognition boxes got ticked for the E3 demo, didn't they?

See, this is to my mind is why it's wrong to characterise this as a hate thread. It's not that we hate the game. We love the franchise and the setting; this is more about venting frustration, Because grabbing Todd Howard by the lapels and shaking him until his teeth rattle while shouting "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING" would probably get us arrested, and venting a little on an internet forum seems like a far more socially acceptable way to let off some steam.