Fallout 4...

[Humanoid]

Fallout 3 didn't really have an ending slideshow either. I mean in a literal sense there was one, sure, but it didn't actually show any outcomes, it was a direct account of your actions, along the lines of "the hero went to location X and did action Y, then went to location Z and did action 11" etc. Just another thing on the list of things they tried to carry over but didn't actually understand.

[Oerwinde]

Bethesda just needs to leave Fallout alone, they obviously don't get it

[Humanoid]

I'd accept it more readily if they just went ahead and made it their own instead. It's caught in this weird compromise where it tries to pay lip service to the old games while shoehorning those elements into the standard Bethesda Sandbox game. Bethesda sandboxes are fun to play: no one else makes games like that so I'm happy someone is doing games like that. But I really think it's the perfect opportunity now to just clear the deck: start with the post-apocalyptic 50s schtick but throw out every thing else. It won't be a "Fallout" game anymore, but it'd likely be one I could enjoy as something that stands on itself. Besides, video game reboots have been the theme of this decade so far, it'd hardly be a controversial thing.

 

"Oblivion/Skyrim with guns" is a common pejorative used to describe Bethesda's Fallout games. But I say the problem is that they're not. Not enough, anyway. Drop the old baggage and turn it into a pure, wholly unapologetic Skyrim with guns and I think we'd be better off.

[GhostofAnakin]

Bethesda just needs to leave Fallout alone, they obviously don't get it

 

I'm still trying to put my finger on why Bethesda games do so well.  I mean, don't get me wrong, they're fun in their own right.  But they're constantly praised as though they're the pinnacle of what RPGs should be, and somehow sell millions of copies, despite their (obvious) faults.

 

They really must have an awesome marketing department that's vastly superior to any of the other RPG developer/publishers.  Because their games certainly aren't superior.

[GhostofAnakin]

NPCs sometimes walk back. You teleport. Hence it takes them a while to get there. There are also a lot of places for them to hide in sanctuary.

 

It's been weeks though since I sent her back there.  I've dismissed other companions at various times since then, and all have returned to Sanctuary Hills.

[Maedhros]

I want to like Fallout 4, but whenever I try to play it I just lose interest after 20-30 minutes. It just feels waaay too similar to Fallout 3 in every aspect. In a "been there done that" sort of way. The narrative (with its terrible dialogue system) simply doesn't captivate me enough, in the way Witcher 3 and Life is Strange did this year. Guess I'm just losing interest in "sandbox" type of games.

[omphaloskepsis]

I was ****ing livid when the final boss involved me screaming "BACAWK" at a cloud for 2 minutes.

 

Choice and Consequence. This is the one feature it seems FO3 retains above FO4.

 

Another minor difference is weapon balance. FO3's weapon balance was pre-school levels of balance.

 

Ok, that was the best description of the Alduin fight I've ever seen. It also made me imagine a macho Bruce Lee showdown, which could have been hilarious if done well. Anyway...

 

BGS had always done horrible balance. In Morrowind, for example, all weapons except spears were the same length. So a dagger and a two handed sword had the same reach. This was fixed by modding, of course, but all of their vanilla games are horrible in this regard.

 

That said, FO4 is the first game that they've actually put a little work in. I appreciate that, but then they added legendary weapons into the mix. Legendary weapons are unique, randomly generated magic weapons looted from legendary creatures. Most of them aren't anything special, but a couple, such as one that magically makes every bullet explode, is extremely powerful.

 

So you can get drops that are more powerful than anything crafted, and of course they break the game. Well, unless you hate challenge.

 

Choice and consequence has been slowly getting streamlined out of BGS games since morrowind. Back then there was a horde of upset players who slaughtered entire towns only to be shocked that they couldn't complete quests as a result. And this type of player apparently didn't believe in replaying with different characters, so the game was "broken". For whatever reason, this is the type of player that BGS has been catering to ever since.

 

Skyrim convinced me that BGS was done with RPG mechanics and C&C, but the dialog was still flexible enough that you could at least LARP different characters, and there was some path variation in quests. It was enough for me to enjoy the hiking sim aspects.

 

FO4 removed (already limited) branching dialog and quests, as well as the last vestiges of C&C. NPCs have been further streamlined into atm-like quest dispensers.

 

But companions have more character and dialog, movement and shooting mechanics have been greatly improved, and a clunky crafting interface had been slapped on. You can't remove skeletons or weeds, though. I guess that would ruin the environmental storytelling.

 

Anyway, yeah, if you like RPGs and don't think that every game should be a borderlands clone, then you'll probably like FO3 better. I put about 60 hours into FO4, then reinstalled (for the third time) FONV and put about 200 hours into that.

[HoonDing]

Considering it's their last Failout game, I really expected them to go all out.

 

Don't really care it's phoned in since I don't like the franchise anyway, but doesn't bode well for next Elder Scrolls.

Edited December 29, 2015 by HoonDing

[Darkpriest]

Considering it's their last Failout game, I really expected them to go all out.

 

Don't really care it's phoned in since I don't like the franchise anyway, but doesn't bode well for next Elder Scrolls.

 

How do you know it is their last FO game?

[GhostofAnakin]

Some of the legendary gear drops are disappointing.  Especially some of the armors.  A shoulder pad that prevents 15% damage from ghouls, but otherwise has horrible base stats compared to even a random raider shoulder pad isn't something I'm ever going to use.

[Longknife]

Bethesda just needs to leave Fallout alone, they obviously don't get it

 

 

I like to try and be positive.

 

Bethesda bought this franchise. Why? I believe it was marketing reasons. They wanted a sci-fi series to compliment their fantasy one, and instead of starting a new IP, they wanted an insanely popular IP to kickstart sales. Marketing is the only reason I can name for insisting upon this, as a new IP wouldn't see them in limbo between adhering to FO's lore and blatantly breaking it apart. To that end, it's ****ing disgusting to know a great franchise is going to die (at least spiritually, as even if it remains and is successful, it won't be the Fallout we all know) for nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

 

However...? Fallout New Vegas is the best god damned game I've ever played. And it's an amazing ending to the original series, too. Let's look at the writing on the wall: how do you possibly end Fallout as a series? It's impossible to avoid disappointment really, because Fallout games present this "challenge" of "War never changes." You as the player likely load up the game thinking "I'LL CHANGE IT," and then the game shows you exactly why you won't. I think for a grand finale, people would want to see war actually change once and for all; people love a happy ending. But this cannot be done, because the issue of "war never changes" exists in our own world. If the writers for Fallout figured out how to make war believably and reasonably change in a Fallout game, they'd be candidates for a Nobel Peace Prize in real life too; it's just not happening, and it's ridiculous to expect it from them.

 

 

The point is I do think the Fallout franchise is doomed to hit a point where it starts becoming difficult to top the last one, simply because topping it demands superior insights to the last Fallout about how we can change war once and for all. Eventually, this will be next to impossible for humble game developers.

 

But New Vegas was ambitious. New Vegas provided you with more control, choice and consequence and dramatic decisions (you can be single-handedly responsible for destroying or saving everything in the known Fallout West Coast universe) than any other Fallout game. If the next Fallout title did the exact same and copied this formula, with the potential to destroy or save everything AGAIN? It'd get old. But how the HELL do you top it?

 

 

In some ways I think you don't, and I truly wonder if Obsidian made that game thinking "this may be our last Fallout game ever, so let's make it count." I once wrote up a theory about how if you look at Lonesome Road in particular, you can draw some rather interesting (though assuredly unintended) metaphors from it. ED-E? ED-E is the sole representation of Bethesda's Fallout in the entire game. Aside from Wasteland Survival Guide, ED-E is the only character that stems from a Bethesda Fallout game. He spends the DLC and likely much of the game shadowing the Courier, constantly by your side and - in the case of Lonesome Road - neccesary to progress. If you take the Courier to represent Obsidian, then ED-E could represent Fallout, showing how as things stand now, an Obsidian Fallout can not exist without Bethesda being around too, constantly watching over the shoulder to supervise decisions. Likewise, by the end of Lonesome Road, you're given a choice: nuke everything that Black Isle and Obsidian ever built, or spare it. In order to spare it? The representation of Bethesda must be destroyed for this to work. There is no other option. If you want that representation of Bethesda to survive? Then at least a portion of the originals must be destroyed. The two cannot co-exist.

 

As I said, assuredly this is mere coincidence and really more insight into my pessimism regarding future fallouts with Bethesda at the wheel, but you get the idea. :D But I digress...

 

I think New Vegas is the perfect ending to the series. It provides you with the tools to do whatever you want. War Never Changes and the devs can't help you find a way to make it change, but it can leave you with all the tools you need to carve out the future for the Core Region that you desire. In New Vegas' ending, you can either imply Fallout is a cycle, that everything will be nuked to hell and back again and humanity will once again rebuild and become war-torn, or you can imply that perhaps humanity has come just one step closer to remedy'ing the problem by avoiding that cycle, all while letting you choose which style of government you want at the wheel in the aftermath of it all.

 

 

 

It would be very easy to sit here and ponder all the "what if" scenarios of if another company bought Fallout, but the truth of the matter is we don't know what we could've gotten. I for one? I'm just grateful we got New Vegas, because if you view FO1, FO2, and FO:NV as their own series independent of Bethesda's Fallouts? Then I think that was the best god damned ending they ever could've given us. And for that? I'm grateful.

 

 

 

 

 

Bethesda just needs to leave Fallout alone, they obviously don't get it

 

I'm still trying to put my finger on why Bethesda games do so well.  I mean, don't get me wrong, they're fun in their own right.  But they're constantly praised as though they're the pinnacle of what RPGs should be, and somehow sell millions of copies, despite their (obvious) faults.

 

They really must have an awesome marketing department that's vastly superior to any of the other RPG developer/publishers.  Because their games certainly aren't superior.

 

 

 

Marketing. Marketing and sheer size.

 

Part of it is that make no mistake, their marketing department is the best in the business. Bethesda's marketing team is the final boss of the gaming industry, cause I'll be damned if no other company can even hold a candle to what their marketing team does.

 

 

The other thing is the sheer size of their games. I've experienced something similar with the Sims 3, where I have my disappointment with the game, but likewise can't deny how much potential the game has, thus I periodically pick it back up to try again. We've all bought games before that we've completed in under 10 hours, and then despite enjoyment, we can't help but feel disappointment with how quickly we put it on a shelf, never to be played again. Bethesda offers the opposite of this. The games are so content heavy that they're bound to AT LEAST get 50 hours out of most players, which is something most gamers aren't accustomed to. Now, you or I might be able to look at past Bethesda titles and realize we have over 1,000 in those but can't scratch 150 in their newest title, thus there's a sense of disappointment, but if this is someone's first Bethesda game, they'll marvel at the fact they've quadrupled the enjoyment they get from the average game and swear loyalty to Bethesda.

 

 

The problem is the games seem designed just to provide content, but not QUALITY content. When you look past the smoke and mirrors, it's all very shallow and incomplete. But this doesn't matter, and the marketing team knows this.

 

That disappointment you feel? It gnaws at you, bites at you, makes you anxious to give the game another shot. You KNOW the game has loads of potential, so you're hesitant to shelve it, telling yourself that perhaps you unknowingly strategically dodged all the best content in the game your first playthrough, so you give it another shot. By the time you're assured enough to conclude the game sucks and the cake is a lie, it's been months and your negative criticisms will not harm Bethesda in any way. And even after you conclude it sucks, you STILL feel disappointment with the wasted potential, wishing the game was just a bit better.

 

Fast forward to the next game or DLC release, and you catch yourself wondering if perhaps this time, they'll get things right. They were so close (and yet so far) last time, right? It's possible they improved, right? Simultaneously you've got Todd Howard on a stage giving a very well rehearsed and orchestrated speech that the marketing team assures will improve sales, and in small interviews he is actively acknowledging the very criticisms you had of the last game, admitting to them, and promising they've been a focal point of their new title. Your hope is renewed, you buy. Lo and behold, it's all the same. It's the 2.0 version of the last game you hated. None of the problems you named were addressed, it's just Todd and Co knew the only people that'd be digging up those interviews enough to care about watching would be the ones experienced with past titles that know the flaws, and even newcomer fans wouldn't grasp the extent of those issues or be scared off if you confessed to them.

 

 

In short, the games are perfectly designed in size and scope so that no matter how much you genuinely believe one of their titles to be garbage, you will never, EVER doubt their potential. They absolutely 100% ensure that every gamer on the market believes in the potential of Bethesda Game Studios, the result being that even the cynics HOPE for improvement in the next title.

 

 

 

 

The things that dissuaded me from purchasing were very subtle. The E3 footage of the deathclaw battle for example. The rate the player and the deathclaw lost health suggested more bullet sponges and leveled enemies to me, as well as that DR system I've grown to hate. The USS Constitution with rocket engines attached was another. It assured me the game would have more rule-of-cool plotlines that cared nothing for the realism or the lore of the series. Traits are gone? This can only mean the game is casualized and actively avoiding ANY potential for the stupidest gamer imagineable (looking at you, DSP) to pick something they didn't actually want before whining and moaning and throwing the game away because how DARE there be consequences; companions being immortal reinforced this theory, as did no level cap. And finally, the perks. That shiny perk tree was yet another example of presentation being valued over functionality. Just by looking at the perk tree, you could tell there was no room for any skill or cross-SPECIAL requirements when choosing perks, which meant there was less to help make a character feel unique. This was a design decision with presentation in mind, with actually gameplay reprocussions taking a backseat. Seeing that, I was willing to bet everything I owned we'd see more "20% cooler" perks from Skyrim in FO4, and now I sit here wishing someone took me up on that offer and bet against me.

 

 

Everything for me just pointed to the game being Skyrim 2.0, a game I didn't like, so I opted not to buy and to watch Let's Plays first. So so glad I did. The stories are even more nonsensical than FO3, choice and consequence is dead, "I WORK FOR BELETHOR AT THE GENERAL GOODS STORE" 2.0 is actually a thing since NPCs will obsessively repeat the same dialog lines, perks do not seem to matter worth a ****ing DAMNED (I have yet to encounter a playthrough where I could discern what perks a person had in combat; everyone looks and acts functionally the same, and hell everyone seems drawn towards the exact same perks), rule of cool scenarios such as suicidal mutants that make no damned sense, cartoonish villains, gutted dialog, etc etc etc.

 

 

 

My advice?

 

Next time Bethesda releases a title, look past the blinding lights of hype and view everything with the same scrutiny. Really critically review gameplay footage and ask if enemies and the player are taking damage at similar rates to past titles, ask yourself why Bethesda is so hush-hush about the story (Marketing 101 says put your best foot forward and talk about your strengths, ijs), ask if past loved features seem capable of existing amongst newer features presented; just remain critical. And if it looks like the game may have some blemishes? Do not buy. The gaming industry is not going to improve until gamers learn to say no, especially since every three years there's a new generation of naive and ignorant teenagers that haven't experienced enough half-hearted games to know better.

 

 

 

 

Totally random side-note? Amazing video is amazing (no it's not just that face mod, be patient, it gets better):

 

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Longknife

[mkreku]

Well, I dropped 200 hours on this game before finishing it. But I have to agree that.. wtf is up with the story/quests. So many places are left un-used! There are vaults and villages and really interesting locations that are never touched by either quests or story. Just places with random named NPC's that you can't interact with. Why? New Vegas did this right. The story was way too restricted. I, too, wish we could either wage war or unite the factions (or at least try). Oh well.

 

I also agree that the legendary modification of armour isn't what it could have been. I only used stat enhancing gear at the end since 15% less damage from mirelurks wasn't exactly tempting in the endgame.. I do wish there had been more different legendary gear to find that was already named (and somewhat more unique). It's a great way of rewarding exploration. They did this in places, just not enough.

 

Other than that (ending on a positive note): I really loved the world. Best Bethesda has done so far. I loved being able to upgrade my weapons. I loved finding these random legendary beasts (even though that was mostly a positive at the beginning of the game). I had fun upgrading my settlements until it became a chore. I enjoyed levelling up and I'm impressed that I could get 80 levels in and still feel like my levels mattered (although I wish some skills weren't acquired so easily, like.. breathing under water indefinitely and not taking damage from radiation for one puny skillpoint early in the game). I loved the vertical exploration! I wish more games would let me both dive and climb (like the original Gothic) because it makes even a small world feel expansive when I know I can find things underwater and when I'm not forced to move in a 2D plane. I loved the new gunplay! I didn't use VATS even once because shooting my guns were so much fun. I actually loved some of the quests (asylum and detective come to mind). I came to love the graphics. They're not strikingly pretty but the new lighting made for a really atmospheric game and apparently that matters more to me. Having a working physics engine is also a plus (played some Witcher 3 after Fallout 4 and that world, while pretty, feels kind of dead now).

 

All in all, a good game. Not great, but good.

[GhostofAnakin]

Fallout 4 can be summed up as:

 

-If you like sandbox games where exploration, adventure, and traveling across a wide area is your thing, then buy it.

 

-If you actually care about a good story, well written quests, and great dialogue, stay clear.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Which is why Bethy and Obsidian should join forces when it comes to Fallout. Let Beth do the world building and tell Obsidian what kind of story they want. Then let Obsidian create the story, quests and dialogs.

[GhostofAnakin]

Which is why Bethy and Obsidian should join forces when it comes to Fallout. Let Beth do the world building and tell Obsidian what kind of story they want. Then let Obsidian create the story, quests and dialogs.

 

Or just let Obsidian do the entire game and Bethesda can supply the marketing for the game.

 

FO:NV >>> any Bethesda FO titles

[HoonDing]

 

this made me want to punch my monitor

 

all distress signals have incredibly irritating voice over

[GhostofAnakin]

I finally found Curie.  I had to go back to Vault 81 to recruit her, even though I clearly told her to head to Sanctuary Hills the previous time I met her.

 

Also, the companion pathfinding continues to annoy me.  They refuse to get in elevators, they bump into me when I'm trying to sneak through a door, and they do absolutely nothing during combat other than get hurt to the point I have to stimpak them.  They're pack mules and nothing more.  And they're not even good at that, since they can't carry much weight.

[CoM_Solaufein]

No one ever said AI was smart. What annoys me is when I engage in combat and most of the time I'm by myself because my pack mule is far behind me.

[Quillon]

-If you like sandbox games where exploration, adventure, and traveling across a wide area is your thing, then buy it.

 

This exploration aspect every beth fan brags about... I can't not see the same assets, same random crap loot where ever I go in the game... hacking/lockpicking per the minute... how is it fun? Even side quests are so boring and quickly can be taken care of... if there is even any.

[kensu]

Does Fallout 4 have skill ratings increase with ease? That's one thing that's bothered me from the original game, you can only increase them at level up, irrespective of how often they're used.

[Lexx]

Fallout 4 has no skills and the perks could as well not be there, you most likely wouldn't feel a difference. In fact, it probably would make for a better game, because browsing this perk interface is pure hell.

[kensu]

It doesn't have skill trees that look like constellations, does it?

[CoM_Solaufein]

It doesn't have skill trees that look like constellations, does it?

No, that would be Skyrim

[WDeranged]

No, the constellation (vomit) chart was actually easier to understand at a glance.  They did at least keep the ability to hoard perks and spend them later, far better than forcing you to make a choice on level up.

[Hurlshort]

I wonder if they will go back to SPECIAL for Fallout 5?  I mean, Bethesda has been known to correct a few mistakes over the years.  They did make some positive changes from Oblivion to Skyrim.

 

 

Probably best not to expect anything though.