Fallout VIII: Another Thread Needs Your Help General

[The_Jackal]

Not relevant, and rather silly. That's about like saying 'don't get scammed'. The whole point is that you don't know you're being scammed until it happens. Granted, the savvy individual can generally avoid most of it, but it isn't really helpful to say 'don't click on clickbait' when you don't know which videos are clickbait and which aren't.

I call BS. If you're of even moderate intelligence, you ought to be able to figure out clickbait just by looking at the thumbnail. What's more, if you watch a vid and discover that they are, lo and behold, clickbait, hit the down arrow, and that also informs Youtube's algorithms. You can also downcheck recommendations from Youtube by clicking on the three dots by the title and picking 'not interested'. I'm not suggesting that nobody ever get fooled, but if you react to bad actors by working with the tools the platform offers, the problem of incendiary & dishonest content can be brought under control. The reason it doesn't happen is that most people let the viewing experience wash over them, without reacting to it. That's why every video comes with an admonition to 'like and subscribe', because the vast majority of people don't click anything.

And furthermore, clickbait isn't the problem, it is the shock jocks out there that are causing this particular issue, who don't use clickbait to get people to watch videos, it's the objectionable content that lure people into responding with vitriolic ferver, not realizing that every comment, be it for or against, and every like OR dislike, adds to the value of the video for the shock jock. So really, it should be 'don't feed the trolls'.

The shock-jocks are the clickbait purveyors. They're the same thing. It's all a mad scramble for views and subscribers, because those are how the platform is monetized. But we all have power as viewers to curate that experience for ourselves and each other. I'm not asking anyone to be telepathic or flawless, just to be engaged with the media you use, think critically, and rate appropriately. The beauty of the Youtube algorithm is that it will show you what you want to see, and will reward content creators who make that cool stuff, provided there's a sponsor they can get to throw an ad in front of it. Also, if there's a 'NSFW' content creator you want to support, they also probably have a patreon page, so you can support them directly, if you feel strongly enough about it.

The phenomenon we're currently experiencing is one in which there's a large segment of the internet economy which is directly driven by monetizing outrage, and that is what's driving the race to the bottom in our public discourse. The only recourse we have as individuals to push for a better internet is to help the platform be better.

[Triaxx]

Unfortunately, all YouTube cares about is views. Everything else is just so much chaff. By the time you realize you've been hooked, it's too late, the damage has been done, and all the down votes and dislikes in the world do nothing.

[The_Jackal]

Unfortunately, all YouTube cares about is views. Everything else is just so much chaff. By the time you realize you've been hooked, it's too late, the damage has been done, and all the down votes and dislikes in the world do nothing.

That's a gross over-simplification. Youtube's algorithm does take your feedback into account. Upvotes count. Downvotes count. Your 'I don't want to see this content' in the recommendations feed counts. The comments count. What Youtube cares about is engagement, in particular repeat engagement. They want to encourage content creators to make content that will produce regular visitors. They want every creator to be a micro-channel, and they want those channels to drive advertising revenue. So when you feed the algorithm your preferences, you're doing two things: One, you're making Youtube better at curating content for you, and you're making the algorithm better period. By itself, the algorithm knows nothing, it relies on humans to produce output.

Now you can't make someone like Logan Paul disappear just by poking the dislike button yourself. But your vote does count, just like in the political process. Really, it's better than politics, because you get to curate your own content.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

That's a gross over-simplification. Youtube's algorithm does take your feedback into account. Upvotes count. Downvotes count. Your 'I don't want to see this content' in the recommendations feed counts. The comments count. What Youtube cares about is engagement, in particular repeat engagement. They want to encourage content creators to make content that will produce regular visitors. They want every creator to be a micro-channel, and they want those channels to drive advertising revenue. So when you feed the algorithm your preferences, you're doing two things: One, you're making Youtube better at curating content for you, and you're making the algorithm better period. By itself, the algorithm knows nothing, it relies on humans to produce output.

Now you can't make someone like Logan Paul disappear just by poking the dislike button yourself. But your vote does count, just like in the political process. Really, it's better than politics, because you get to curate your own content.

I don't think you understand how Youtube's algorithm works, because it most certainly doesn't work like that.

Downvotes, upvotes... it's all traffic, which counts as a positive for the channel's monetization capabilities. A 'not interested' simply removes that particular video from your feed, which is pointless as long as you don't just go video surfing and stick to your subscriptions, it carries no negative connotations for the channel as a whole.

[Anteros]

Okay, it's not censorship if I'm editing your graffiti on my wall. Yes, Youtube invites content creators to post content on their platform, but at the end of they day, it's their platform, and they decide what is and is not appropriate use. In effect, your free speech rights are captivated by the private property rights and speech rights of the provider. Also, you signed the terms of use when you created the Youtube account. If you really want to create a Let's Play over which you have complete editorial control, I recommend you build and run your own server.

Now I agree that it's regrettable that Youtube's algorithm and staffing isn't quite aware enough to understand satire, or metaphor, or even fantasy, but at the end of the day, the current obsession with remaining politically above reproach is the inevitable result of clickbait, soundbyte media. My only recommendation to regular citizens is this: Don't be part of the problem: Don't click on clickbait.

I mean, it is explicitly censorship. It's just not government censorship, and private entities can censor whatever they want.

I call BS. If you're of even moderate intelligence, you ought to be able to figure out clickbait just by looking at the thumbnail.

This is just outright wrong. I can't tell you how many times I've clicked a thumbnail only to find that the scene depicted in it is not actually in the thumbnail. Or I'll be looking for something specific to watch, and it will turn out to be someone intentionally misrepresenting the content of their video for clicks. You often have no way of knowing until you actually click on these things.

Maybe I'm lacking moderate intelligence, but I can't see how you can always avoid these things short of psychic powers.

[DigoDragon]

This is just outright wrong. I can't tell you how many times I've clicked a thumbnail only to find that the scene depicted in it is not actually in the thumbnail. Or I'll be looking for something specific to watch, and it will turn out to be someone intentionally misrepresenting the content of their video for clicks. You often have no way of knowing until you actually click on these things.

I lost count how many times I was "Rick Rolled" last decade.


Still, sucks that you had to give up on your LP, Shneekey.

[Mutazoia]

Still, sucks that you had to give up on your LP, Shneekey.

He doesn't have to give up....just edit it in post. Bleep out the words that the Youtube Nazi-bots find objectionable, and then upload. It's a little more work on the back end, but at least you won't have to worry about getting nuked for no reason.

[DigoDragon]

He doesn't have to give up....just edit it in post. Bleep out the words that the Youtube Nazi-bots find objectionable, and then upload. It's a little more work on the back end, but at least you won't have to worry about getting nuked for no reason.

Is there a resource of words somewhere on what triggers bots? I assume the Grade A swear words would, as do most of the radio songs, but not sure what else.


Recent watching of Balmas' videos, it's interesting just how good that improved Scrap mod is. So much stuff can be broken down for repair parts.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

He doesn't have to give up....just edit it in post. Bleep out the words that the Youtube Nazi-bots find objectionable, and then upload. It's a little more work on the back end, but at least you won't have to worry about getting nuked for no reason.

That would involve so much censorship that it would effectively ruin the experience, and that isn't exactly something I'm willing to do anyway. It would take too long to censor out every instance of something the bots would find objectionable, and make it a not fun thing. I do this because I enjoy it, since I deliberately never enabled monetization on my channel in the first place, and when it tried to ask me to monetize, I strongly refused.

In effect, I would have to avoid about a quarter of the content of the game + DLC's, and that's not something I'm willing to do just to satisfy some idiots who don't understand the concept of a morality foil.

Hell, I'd have to skip OWB entirely becase several of the random messages broadcast outside include words that would probably trigger the bots. I'd have to also skip Honest Hearts because it apparently doesn't like religion, and there's enough mormon/christian references from the two main NPC's that it has fits.

And it destroys the entire point of the game, which is to demonstrate just how much of a crapsack world you are in, which gives you the opportunity to make a change in the world for the better, if you want. There are open examples of rape, torture, extremism of many different flavors, abuse of military prisoners, and many other objectionable topics that you, as the player are supposed to stop. But no, even presenting these topics, even in a negative light to stop, is not permitted.

F*cking @$$holes.

[Triaxx]

What the heck happened that got you problems? I've blown right through all of Honest Hearts, and the rest of the game and only have one copyright thing from a slightly too loud television commercial. Unless marking them Mature Content gets you looked at more closely.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

What the heck happened that got you problems? I've blown right through all of Honest Hearts, and the rest of the game and only have one copyright thing from a slightly too loud television commercial. Unless marking them Mature Content gets you looked at more closely.

I dunno, you'd think they'd be less vigorous against Mature Content flagged videos because, yanno, they're letting you know ahead of time that there's objectionable content in them. But hey, you never know, it's entirely possible I suppose. And many others have also youtube'd that content without apparent issues. So maybe I'm just lucky like that. Either way, I'm done trying to LP that game. I'll play it in my spare time, of course, but I don't want to have to contest every other damn video, even if I am successful in those challenges.

[Triaxx]

Fair enough. Yeah, you'd think that, but Youtube doesn't do anything sensible.

[Rynjin]

Have you thought about using another video site?

[Brookshw]

Anyone tried the Bethesda's Hi Res texture pack? I can't tell if it would really improve things over the many "vivid" or other 2k+ resolution mods available.

Kinda scared if Beth's pack truth be told, those are some hi specs they're suggesting.

[Mudpitmissfit]

Anyone tried the Bethesda's Hi Res texture pack? I can't tell if it would really improve things over the many "vivid" or other 2k+ resolution mods available.

Kinda scared if Beth's pack truth be told, those are some hi specs they're suggesting.

Well most of the consensus seems to be it doesn't make much of a difference unless your using a 4k display.

I use a SSD for my install so 60 gigs for minor improvement doesn't work for me really YMMV.

[Triaxx]

Tried it, was unimpressed, caused lots of annoying Z-fighting.

[Balmas]

Bethesda, as usual, continues to be absolute wank at their job and is unable to do things that modders have been doing for years. In the case of the Hi-Res texture pack, that means that poorly optimized textures make the Hi-Res texture pack almost the same size as the rest of the game. Which textures are applied are inconsistent at best, which leaves you with odd situations where some items are lower quality than everything around them, or where a stray rock is incongruously detailed with the rocks around it. For my money, you're better off going with a modded texture pack, as it's probably going to do the same thing better but with less of a bloat on your install size.

[Balmas]

Well, that's the Pitt done and dusted in the Let's Play, at least as far as recording goes.

I'm still frustrated by the forced moral choice in the Pitt. It's not that being forced to make moral decisions is bad; in fact, I'd consider that to be at the heart of making a good RPG. The problem is that the Pitt forces you to choose between two equally immoral decisions without letting you make any better decisions, and without accounting for the issue that's at the real base of the conflict. You're forced to choose: Do you support the totalitarian Ashur, who's enslaving and killing thousands in order to fuel his dream of a united, mutation-free Pittsburgh? Or do you support the power-hungry Starscream-lite Wernher, who promises to free the slaves if you just put him in charge?

My issue with this choice is that it ignores any third options. You can't use science yourself to accelerate the cure. You can't kidnap the baby and then, instead of delivering it to Wernher or Ashur, take it to someone else who has the power to work on the cure like the BoS or Madison Li. You can't talk to Ashur and convince him that what he's doing is wrong, and that he should free the slaves. You can't bash Ashur and Wernher's heads together and force them to work together in peace. Your only options are to either let a dictator continue to enslave people in the hopes that one day they manage to develop a cure that may or may not happen from a natural immunity that may or may not actually exist, or choose to help a failed lieutenant continue in his revenge coup plan.

It's all made worse because no matter what you choose, the outcome's roughly the same. Whether or not Ashur's in charge, the slaves still do the same thing. They still stick around in the Pitt. They still hack and cough and get sick, still chop iron and smelt metal and go looking for ingots in the steelyard. The decision you make is irrelevant because they're still in the Pitt, and the Pitt is the worst place imaginable to try to build a city.

There aren't any good outcomes in this DLC. So, when the time came to choose, Charlie said "f*** it" and went to the direct end result. Incidentally, she now has the Lord Death perk.

[Brookshw]

I'm still frustrated by the forced moral choice in the Pitt. It's not that being forced to make moral decisions is bad; in fact, I'd consider that to be at the heart of making a good RPG. The problem is that the Pitt forces you to choose between two equally immoral decisions without letting you make any better decisions

Not to call your objection wrong, but I kind of appreciate that about the pitt, there are no winners, it's a bad choice and a bad choice. It's something a bit bold and different (and now dated). While one of the best things about Fallout is generally the flexibility and multiple solutions/outcomes, with some exceptions, not everything can have a good outcome and sometimes victory looks a lot like defeat. The pitt gave us that (and a silenced assault rifle). For an apocalypse setting, the tragic ending feels like it deserves a place, somewhere when no one wins (disclaimer: I'm also a fan of grimdark). It's kind of like the vaults, the stories are tragic generally, but compelling none the less.

Note: there's no guarantee the kid's going to save the day, that might just be optimism and wishful thinking. What we know is the residents of the pitt "hope" to break the cycle, not that it's actually do-able regardless of technical/medical know how. Good 4th wall messing with the player.

[Balmas]

Not to call your objection wrong, but I kind of appreciate that about the pitt, there are no winners, it's a bad choice and a bad choice. It's something a bit bold and different (and now dated). While one of the best things about Fallout is generally the flexibility and multiple solutions/outcomes, with some exceptions, not everything can have a good outcome and sometimes victory looks a lot like defeat. The pitt gave us that (and a silenced assault rifle). For an apocalypse setting, the tragic ending feels like it deserves a place, somewhere when no one wins (disclaimer: I'm also a fan of grimdark). It's kind of like the vaults, the stories are tragic generally, but compelling none the less.

Note: there's no guarantee the kid's going to save the day, that might just be optimism and wishful thinking. What we know is the residents of the pitt "hope" to break the cycle, not that it's actually do-able regardless of technical/medical know how. Good 4th wall messing with the player.

I can appreciate being forced to choose between two bad options, especially in an apocalyptic hellscape. I just don't appreciate being forced into it when there are several obvious alternatives that, for whatever reason, I'm not allowed to choose.

I'll also note that the Vaults being tragic is generally more acceptable because as a player, you're usually coming into the scene after everything happens. You're a cautious explorer picking through the wrecks and ruin of what's already been done, collecting notes that explain how this came about. There's a certain emotional distance from anything that happens. A tragic ending for a vault would be much less acceptable if the game asked you to invest two-to-three hours getting to know all the people of the vault, and then sucker-punched you with "PSYCH! Nobody's happy, and it's all your fault, even though you theoretically could do a half dozen things to change this!"

[Triaxx]

Of course Trouble on the Home front is precisely that.

[PopeLinus1]

So, I got into Fallout with NV, which is one of my favorite games. Do the experts(or whatever passes for expert) on this thread think I should play 3? It sounds fun... but I didn’t really like F4 becuase It really just wasn’t a good RPG. I’ve heard people say 3 is similar but I welcome opinions! Or, more likely on this forum, a lot of arguments.

[factotum]

FO3 suffers from a lot of the same issues FO4 does with regard to its storyline and quest structure, so if the main thing putting you off FO4 was those, it's probably not worth your time. Remember that FO3 and FO4 are both in-house creations by Bethesda, whereas NV was put together by Obsidian using Bethesda-supplied tools and engine! If your main problem with FO4 was the RPG system, on the other hand, FO3 uses pretty much the same one as NV does, so it might be more up your alley.

[Triaxx]

3's somewhere between the two. It's better than 4, but didn't quite hit the heights of NV. There were fewer companions and none of them were particularly stand out. Dogmeat, and RL-3 are probably the tops for actually having personality. The rest are just sort of loot carriers with guns.

The story, is like the companions. Just sort of there, and interesting if you don't think too hard about it. (Cue rants from opposing sides)

The big open world is the really fun part. Wandering around, shooting random things that try to kill you, and exploring the various nooks and crannies is awesome.

[LibraryOgre]

I can appreciate being forced to choose between two bad options, especially in an apocalyptic hellscape. I just don't appreciate being forced into it when there are several obvious alternatives that, for whatever reason, I'm not allowed to choose.

This is actually something I cite whenever introducing people to Tabletop RPGs... "You ever been in a game, and know there's an obvious solution, but you can't try it, because the game simply won't let you?"

Like, I have just powermurdered almost every guard and tons of trogs. I have transportation back to the Capital Wasteland, and I know where some derelict farms are. You wanna go live someplace that doesn't give you Supercancer?

[Spore]

Supercancer?

Great. Now I cannot see fictional radiation mutants as nothing other than "supercancer patients". Ruined that, I guess.

My main problem is that the world in Fallout 3 feels empty. This is apparently intended (and makes sense) but from a gameplay standpoint I would like some way to push together the important areas in the wasteland. Maybe a long-time player of FO 3 does not feel that way. but the world is not made for "random exploration" that I enjoy. You need guidance. You need to know where stuff is. Wandering around just gets you eaten by monster and/or depleted of ammo.

[Anteros]

Fallout 3 is basically Fallout 4 but slightly worse in most ways. It was a better game for its time because it had the benefit of coming first and establishing a lot of the things we currently enjoy in the Fallout games, but going to it for the first time from 4 or New Vegas is definitely a downgrade. New Vegas is the best game in the series and it isn't even close.

Fallout 4 is basically just Fallout 3 except polished...but the problem is that while Fallout 3 was revolutionary for its time...Fallout 4 basically just recycled the same stuff. If you really liked Fallout 4 and wished there was more disjointed and random wasteland to explore then I'd give 3 a chance. If you're looking for story or immersion then it's not so great.

[Triaxx]

Opposing side argument detected.

I kind of agree, but I like the wide open world with the space between things giving the space to maneuver around the encounters and engage how you want. Try that in Fallout 4, you get shot in the back by the next group right beside you.

[unseenmage]

To me both gameworlds are too tightly compacted. But then I was raised on a hundred acres of nothing in a hundred year old log cabin so exploring truly open space is fun for me.

That said, I do agree that FO4 is the more egregious offender in this regard. Especially when it comes to Diamond City.

[Triaxx]

Forested? Or open range?

Okay, this is weird. I'm not getting any audio out of Fallout New Vegas. I have mic okay, but no game audio. I recorded the episode where it was discovered, and nothing. I've tweaked all the settings I can think of, but nothing's working.