TiDinzeo

Which is most videos. And don't forget, right now people uploading their own original content are getting copyright strikes because the system's broken. https://twitter.com/itsDanBull/status/1073232348743917569

Nah, that would take far too much work and money on Youtube's art. They're more likely to stop anyone except trusted channels upload anything at all because Youtube don't want to be responsible if someone uploads something that someone else holds the copyright for. And because it's cheaper and easier for them to just have one system everywhere, they'll probably roll that out globally. Additionally, fair use doesn't work quite the same way in the EU as it does in the US so a lot of what could be defended with fair use in the US, can't be in the EU. This is probably the video I've seen that makes it easiest to understand it.

I have a FO4 playthrough where I'm trying to avoid the main quest as much as possible. I got the Quincy Survivors to Sanctuary and set them up there, took and finished the first 'X settlement needs your help' quest from Preston but didn't turn it in. And I've got the transmitter thingy from ArcJet for Danse and told him I'd think about his offer. Since then I've been going around exploring and doing as much as I can. Most of that is small, two or three part quests at most with little or no impact on the rest of the game. I know that with the BoS all I'll be able to do without advancing the main quest is the endless radiant quests from the scribe and squire and with the Minutemen will be clearing out the castle and then the radiant quests (which also doesn't change if you do play the main quest to be fair). I honestly don't know about the Railroad, I haven't contacted them at all in this playthrough and, obviously, the Institute is entirely locked behind the main quest. Of course, you could say that there's not much in the way of content in the parts I can't access without pretending I give a damn about a child forced on my character by Bethesda who most likely, as far as I know, is already dead and could even have died of old age whilst I was frozen giving me no reason at all to go out and find him. but when you actually look at the quests for the factions in Skyrim you could also say that their questlines aren't all that much in terms of content individually either as they're usually a handfull of fetch quests after which you're in charge. They're just better written, in that they have an actual, sensible (in world) story and there's more of them than in FO4. So to actually answer your question, no, you can't say that about FO4.

In Skyrim you can do pretty much everything else before you do most of the main quest as far as I can remember, the only real exception to that is Dawnguard where he won't let you join up unless you've defeated Alduin. If you progress the main quest up to the point of the Greybeards shout calling you to High Hrothgar (so after the first dragon fight) that is. And after that, you can ignore the main quest until you've done everything else and become a demi-god who also owns all the money in Skyrim. Sure, Fallout 4 might let you ignore the main quest sooner, but it still locks away large parts of the game.

And if you do that you can't do anything with the Brotherhood of steel or the Institute as they only unlock with story missions. There are large parts of the game gated behind the main quest. That's what he means by not being able to ignore it I believe.

It all saves on the servers. The same as an MMORPG You just sign in on your account and it's all there still. The only thing you might want to save that's actually on your computer is your keybindings.

You could try on the discord server. That's probably got as good a chance as anywhere I'd guess.

You entirely missed my point then. If we extend your comment here to an admittedly absurd end, we should all be using a rotary dial controller such as was used for pong. Sure, that would be extremely limiting to the games that could be made, but if we have no innovation in controls and no new control systems in gaming then that is what we are left with. Except they do work. Possibly not as well as something that's been iterated on and improved upon because it's been used so many times and tweaked each time, but they do work as proven by the fact that you can play the game. Future iterations will be better than the first generation, that's how development works. I've never heard a critic say they hate Arkham combat, for any reason. Yes, they point out that it's been used before, but usually, hand in hand with talking about any improvements that have been made and any places where it falls short. Yes, they sometimes do call for innovation but that's for many reasons, maybe in some cases the control scheme doesn't fit the game, maybe sometimes the places where the control scheme does fall short are jarring to them and maybe sometimes it's because they play so many games, far more than the rest us, that they get bored of it in a shorter time than the rest of us. They also point out when new controls systems don't work very well, because their aim is to inform the people reading/watching/listening to their content of the reality of the game, talking about what they've found to be notably good or bad to the game. A control scheme is how you experience a game if you don't have new control schemes then they all start feeling the same, regardless of the setting or story or even the graphics. That's why developers try new control schemes and that's why it's a good thing. Yes, new control schemes will come with problems, but as it's used more and adapted and tweaked in other games, it will get better. So yes, developers absolutely should be coming up with new control schemes for their games and yes, they should also iterate and tweak ones that are already out there. And I'm not, by any means saying that people shouldn't complain when new schemes don't feel good, they absolutely should so that the developers can see that and try to make them better next time but saying they should never come out with new controls schemes is just stupid, as is expecting a new control scheme to work perfectly in it's first title, there is no way anyone can afford the time and manpower to achieve that because each time to iterate, you'd need new testers as the ones who had tested the previous version have some level of familiarity with the system so it's obviously going to be easier for them, as such, it's entirely possible that the devs didn't see the issues players would have on release because they already had tens or hundreds of hours learning the system and it's nuances. And that, of course, is before you go into the sheer number of hardware and driver configurations that you have to take into account if you're developing for the PC market.

The event was likely done with Microsoft so they could spread the cost a bit. So Xbones makes some sense. Plus, I believe that it's pretty common for test versions of the games at events like this to be on consoles as they're much more portable, much easier to set up and let's face it, if a PC player goes in and sees something running on a console, they're probably going to think 'Just think how much better this will be on my much higher spec PC.'

So we should go back to not being able to look up in shooters? Because that used to be a thing. There needs to be innovation in controls as much as in any part of a game because players do get bored, it might not be as quickly as journalists and critics, but we also don't play anywhere near as many games and also because it's always possible to make things better. If Kingdom Come: Deliverance's control scheme had worked right for most people, chances are we'd be hailing it as a welcome change, like the Arkham combat system was despite it still having problems (mainly that having to block disrupts your combo) after many iterations. Yes, we absolutely should be letting developers know when innovations aren't working right, but saying that they shouldn't innovate in something that's a core part of potentially making a game enjoyable (bad/broken controls can make a game unplayable faster than pretty much anything else and can, when done right, make an otherwise mediocre game, very fun to play) is not realistic or helpful.

Pretty sure that he forgets only when he hasn't played the game, or used that function, for a while. Just like when you come back to a game it takes you a little time to get used to the controls again, except in this case, the keys it shows aren't labelled the way they are on the controller itself. Assuming there are any labels left on it after so many years of use.

The problem I have with darker nights mods is that as the settings most of the games are in don't have artificial lights, nights generally wouldn't be so dark because there would be star and moon light that get lost in the modern world because of light pollution from towns, cities and roads.

Surely a better question would be 'Does it take paint well' because if it does, it doesn't really matter what colour it dries.

My point was more that imo, that should be an option in the base game without needing to mod for it. Of course, if it's a lot of work, I would rather they concentrate on other things.

I do wonder how much extra work it would be for them to give you an option to turn off the protaganist's voice, I wouldn't think it would be much but I'm also not a game dev, or any kind of coder for that matter.