Current Events > Do you want settlement building in Fallout 5?

(+) Yeah! (+)

To me, FO4 was kinda middling, but creating settlements was its most evergreen aspect. Fortifying Sanctuary Hills as a water farm or turning Kingsport Lighthouse into a robot/raider outpost was pretty fun, even though it was plagued by AI problems and annoyances like settler happiness, size limits, etc.
---

It was a failed half-assed feature in FO4 as far as I'm concerned.

I'd be OK with settlements that naturally grow and develop organically as you rescue people around the Wasteland, and then you could have some decoration options and stuff, but I don't want to waste my time trying to snap two wall pieces together again because the devs can't do something that they did in Minecraft like seven years ago

Yeah but only if the goddamn camera changed to a top down or isometric view when entering crafting mode. Keeping the same in-game perspective was a pain in the ass.
---

IMO the best parts of Fallout games are always the first few hours, when you're scavenging the wasteland, looking for crap to sell, trying to find ammo for your guns, medication, etc.

then what always happens in fallout games is that like 20 hours in, you start amassing a ton of guns, ammo, armor, medicine, your stats are getting high, and you basically become a god, plowing through any area killing anyone. then the whole tone of game game changes, and that's where stuff like settlement building comes in. it just changes the tone from what i enjoy about the games to what loses my interest.

i'd rather have a fallout game where even if your character is important, you are still more or less just a random dude in the wasteland trying to get by, and that concept of survival is always present, even late in the game.
---

I was super hyped for the idea when they announced it in Fallout 4, but now I saw it in execution, and how Bethesda handled it. I want them to focus on the core game, the story, and the quest. They devoted too much time and resources into the sentiment building, and 3 of their DLC packs were devoted to adding shit that modders could add for free. It was a bloated waste of space.
---

making your own building with land for YOU?...sure why not


having to maintain a settlement for other settlers to make sure everyone has food, water, and a bed and to make sure all resources are met?

nope

i only care about myself. Everyone can fuck off.
---

No. It was complete garbage, and every single resource they devoted to implementing it was a complete waste that could have been better spent on literally anything else, up to and including wiping Todd's ass with crisp hundred dollar bills. I'm sure Bethesda will have found some other shitty fad to shoehorn into their game by the time Fallout 5 rolls around anyway.
---

Cool idea, poor execution.

Like the other poster said, just allow a settlement to grow on its own and then allow the player to customize the layout if desired.

Mad Max did an ok job at this. You could upgrade the strongholds by finding the required crafting gear and the settlement would get just a tad but fancier as you upgraded it.
---

equivalent to garrisons in WoW.

it was whack and was the reason i did not continue to play the game.

Honestly I just want to build my own places. I don't care if people are there. I really want to be able to clear out and claim places on the map. A lot of raiders have some pretty sweet digs that I want to snatch.

Hmm, the response is pretty negative so far. I always found building stuff more fun than following the main plot. The irony is that the building aspect itself is usually fun; it's trying to populate the town that invites all sorts of glitches and disasters. I remember the time I built concrete shells on all Sanctuary's houses to make a badass-looking bunker town, then all my robot settlers would just stand around in some random backyard, not working. Lame.

As much as I like large-scale projects, I'm down with the "I'm okay with building, but only for myself" aspect. Once the settlers screw things up, there's just not a lot of fun in building huge ghost towns. The funny thing is that small, normally terrible areas like Tenpines Bluff are pretty fun for solo settlements. I built a tower to live on and populated it with friendly yao guai once -- good times.
---

I'll say the same thing I say every time this topic comes up: I'm in support of having the scope of settlement-building reduced and / or refined in the next Fallout game, and hopefully even the next Elder Scrolls game. But if the feature gets removed completely, I will not only very likely avoid buying the game(s), but will also start compiling a massive shit-list of anyone on the internet whose endless whining ended up getting the feature axed (special shit-list status for anyone who actually thought the 'Bob the Builder' insult was witty). You may think I'm overreacting, but I'd been waiting for a feature like that ever since Oblivion, and flaws aside, it was still not only the highlight of FO4, but also the main new feature that finally spurred me on to go buy it.

And the sad fact is that Bethesda does seem to listen to its fans, if only when it can result in a reduced product - for instance, all the complaining and memes about Oblivion's mudcrab conversations resulted in a much safer and blander random dialogue system in Skyrim, where NPCs always have the exact same conversations.
---

i stopped playing fallout 4 as soon as i got to the settlement building tutorial because it was so disappointing
---

I love city building so yes.
---

Did mods ever make settlement building stuff better?
---

Yeah, but it'd need a shit ton of polish and like someone suggested like a top down view cause it was annoying as fuck placing items just where I wanted.

Settlement building itself wasn't bad, but it completely ruined FO4's DLC.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Settlement building itself wasn't bad, but it completely ruined FO4's DLC.

That's fair enough. They focused on it far too much.

Started FO4 blind I didn't watch any news on the game cause I was so hyped it actually got announced finally.

At first it took me by surprise and for the first two nights of playing all I did was build my settlement it was really fun actually. When I moved on to the story I gradually stopped playing though and I completely stopped settlement building once I realized it added nothing to the story or game.

And I noticed all the side missions and areas were pointless with no special gear or anything worthwhile. At that point I stopped playing it completely and I have yet to finish the game.

A few changes could make this game as great as new Vegas and even better but they need to scrap the voice acting for the main character that killed the immersion.
---

No and it better not be in the next Elder Scrolls either.
---

It killed the game for me and could only play it once I was able to play with mods that pretty much made it null.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Settlement building itself wasn't bad, but it completely ruined FO4's DLC.

People way over-exaggerate the impact the settlement-building packs had on FO4's available DLC. They were two tiny and one barely medium-sized packs, and even if you strip them out of the equation, FO4 still had the best overall DLC Bethesda's put out since Oblivion. It's equivalent to saying 'well I loved Shivering Isles, but Battlehorn Castle and Frostcrag Spire ruined the whole thing.'

I think most of the frustration stems from the fact that, even after the hype surrounding the season pass, Bethesda still stayed in their rut of one-year-and-done for postrelease support and extra content. And that is a valid complaint, especially after they price-hiked the season pass, which gave the very clear impression that FO4 would get considerably more postrelease support than their previous games.
---

gna647 posted...

making your own building with land for YOU?...sure why not


having to maintain a settlement for other settlers to make sure everyone has food, water, and a bed and to make sure all resources are met?

nope

i only care about myself. Everyone can fuck off.

This is how I felt. Didn't really care to have to micro manage a bunch of settlements, but I liked being able to build my own houses for my character. And as long as its optional, I really wouldn't mind if they left it in FO5 as is, though I'd like to see improvements.

DuranOfForcena posted...

i loved settlement building in FO4 and i spent a shitload of time on it, more than probably most people. but i don't like that it was a replacement for established settlements and colonies and whatnot. it made the landscape seem too barren and lifeless when there was only a couple big established settlements and everywhere else i had to work and put in effort in order to make something out of it. if they make it more of a side thing, and don't skimp on other areas of the game because of it, then i am all for it. well, and if they fix all of the horrible UI and AI issues and shortcomings with it.

Especially in the context of Fallout, where it's several hundred years after the bombs fell, and the landscape is by and large relatively free of radiation. You can make settlements yourselves, random generic NPCs.
---

Hexenherz posted...

It was a failed half-assed feature in FO4 as far as I'm concerned.

I'd be OK with settlements that naturally grow and develop organically as you rescue people around the Wasteland, and then you could have some decoration options and stuff, but I don't want to waste my time trying to snap two wall pieces together again because the devs can't do something that they did in Minecraft like seven years ago

This so hard.

should be more like Andromeda but with some direct cusomization options and even more than Andromeda we should see it grow in real time.
---

Skyrim's Hearthstone building system was preferable to FO4's settlements.
---

I voted other cause I'd like all three maybe options

I had a lot of fun with settlement building, I'd love to see it a little more polished.

masterpug53 posted...

Bethesda still stayed in their rut of one-year-and-done for postrelease support and extra content.

Uh, what?
---

masterpug53 posted...

I think most of the frustration stems from the fact that, even after the hype surrounding the season pass, Bethesda still stayed in their rut of one-year-and-done for postrelease support and extra content. And that is a valid complaint, especially after they price-hiked the season pass, which gave the very clear impression that FO4 would get considerably more postrelease support than their previous games.

I knew how much bullshit it was going to be when Bethesda came out and upped the price of their season pass. How the fuck do you quantify how much your DLC should be, and then release the majority of it as expansion packs for settlement building?
---

Settlement building is part of the reason I couldn't really get into Fallout 4. I felt like I was accumulating too much crap. And the game's heavy focus on crafting shit turned me off. Was literally unplayable for me.

I've also heard that because of settlement building existing, it allowed for Bethesda to neglect the pre-made settlements. I'd rather have them put in the work of making an actual settlement with substance than having to do that myself.

I think the option should still be there for people who enjoy it, but I'm not a fan.
---

the only thing FO5 needs is to be developed by Obsidian

FO3+4 are embarassments
---

Alucard188 posted...

masterpug53 posted...

I think most of the frustration stems from the fact that, even after the hype surrounding the season pass, Bethesda still stayed in their rut of one-year-and-done for postrelease support and extra content. And that is a valid complaint, especially after they price-hiked the season pass, which gave the very clear impression that FO4 would get considerably more postrelease support than their previous games.

I knew how much bullshit it was going to be when Bethesda came out and upped the price of their season pass. How the fuck do you quantify how much your DLC should be, and then release the majority of it as expansion packs for settlement building?

I too had a strong feeling that neither the existence of the season pass nor the record-breaking sales of the game would convince Bethesda to support FO4 past the year mark, but it was still a considerable disappointment when it turned out to be true. I didn't buy into the season pass, which was ultimately not a wise move since I ended up buying all 6 DLCs, and would have saved money even on the increased price of the pass.

But again, you're overstating by saying that the majority of the DLC was settlement-building expansions. By comparison, Nuka World, Far Harbor, and Automatron offer more content and quality than Dawnguard, Dragonborn, and Hearthfire.
---

masterpug53 posted...

Alucard188 posted...

masterpug53 posted...

I think most of the frustration stems from the fact that, even after the hype surrounding the season pass, Bethesda still stayed in their rut of one-year-and-done for postrelease support and extra content. And that is a valid complaint, especially after they price-hiked the season pass, which gave the very clear impression that FO4 would get considerably more postrelease support than their previous games.

I knew how much bullshit it was going to be when Bethesda came out and upped the price of their season pass. How the fuck do you quantify how much your DLC should be, and then release the majority of it as expansion packs for settlement building?

I too had a strong feeling that neither the existence of the season pass nor the record-breaking sales of the game would convince Bethesda to support FO4 past the year mark, but it was still a considerable disappointment when it turned out to be true. I didn't buy into the season pass, which was ultimately not a wise move since I ended up buying all 6 DLCs, and would have saved money even on the increased price of the pass.

But again, you're overstating by saying that the majority of the DLC was settlement-building expansions. By comparison, Nuka World, Far Harbor, and Automatron offer more content and quality than Dawnguard, Dragonborn, and Hearthfire.

Sure, but I'm not comparing DLC from Skyrim to Fallout 4. On its own, charging $50 for a season pass when half of it was just settlement DLC that modders do for free is an embarrassment.
---

Alucard188 posted...

masterpug53 posted...

Alucard188 posted...

masterpug53 posted...

I think most of the frustration stems from the fact that, even after the hype surrounding the season pass, Bethesda still stayed in their rut of one-year-and-done for postrelease support and extra content. And that is a valid complaint, especially after they price-hiked the season pass, which gave the very clear impression that FO4 would get considerably more postrelease support than their previous games.

I knew how much bullshit it was going to be when Bethesda came out and upped the price of their season pass. How the fuck do you quantify how much your DLC should be, and then release the majority of it as expansion packs for settlement building?

I too had a strong feeling that neither the existence of the season pass nor the record-breaking sales of the game would convince Bethesda to support FO4 past the year mark, but it was still a considerable disappointment when it turned out to be true. I didn't buy into the season pass, which was ultimately not a wise move since I ended up buying all 6 DLCs, and would have saved money even on the increased price of the pass.

But again, you're overstating by saying that the majority of the DLC was settlement-building expansions. By comparison, Nuka World, Far Harbor, and Automatron offer more content and quality than Dawnguard, Dragonborn, and Hearthfire.

Sure, but I'm not comparing DLC from Skyrim to Fallout 4. On its own, charging $50 for a season pass when half of it was just settlement DLC that modders do for free is an embarrassment.

I'm not against you on the issue of the season pass being crap. But again again, you're overstating the impact of the settlement-building DLC. Half numerically? Sure. Half in terms of total price and content? Not even close. It may sound like a nitpick, but it does become a problem when your average gamer hyperbolically blames settlement-building for too many of Fallout 4's issues.
---

Other than graphics, settlement building was the only thing about FO4 that felt like an upgrade from last gen
---

masterpug53 posted...

I'm not against you on the issue of the season pass being crap. But again again, you're overstating the impact of the settlement-building DLC. Half numerically? Sure. Half in terms of total price and content? Not even close. It may sound like a nitpick, but it does become a problem when your average gamer hyperbolically blames settlement-building for too many of Fallout 4's issues.

All it did was highlight what was endemic of Bethesda's problems, and that is taking the most bland and easy way out in solving their content problems, while relying on the user base and fandom to create their own content. Good on them for supplying the tools necessary to let users do this, but the tools were pretty limiting as well, and a lot of the shit you could do with the NPCs was bugged.
---

M_Live posted...

Fuck no, I hate that kind of stuff in any game.

this. just give me a good story with interesting missions

I really disliked Skyrim's Hearthfire. It felt too limited with what you can do. All the customization was pre-determined. It was essentially a bigger version of the house in Fallout 3's Megaton.

I prefer Fallout 4's settlement-building with it's emphasis on customization but it needed more refinement. It's frustrating that so many things don't snap in place. Also I felt like there was too many locations and micro-managing. It quickly felt pointless and a waste of time, like there really was no stake in it.
---

Yeah, the prefab nature of Hearthfire was okay if you just needed a place to stash loot, but it wasn't super amazing outside of roleplay potential. If FO4 executed its settlements like that, it'd seem like a step backwards, honestly.
---