So I've played Fallout 4...

[mef]

Hello!
I'm not very active here but some of you may recall that I once called Fallout 3 the worst game I've ever played. So when Fallout 4 came out, I had no interest in ever playing it. Why spend time and money on something I know I will hate? Besides, the moment you pay - the bad guys win. But when I saw Fallout 4 on one of the recent Steam sales for a few dollars, I got curious. And I thought, eh, what the hell. So I've played it and...

I liked it.

Now, let's get a few things clear. This is definitely not what I wanted Fallout to become and if you're looking at Fallout 4 as a Fallout game, it fails miserably. No, actually, it doesn't fail because it didn't even try. This is not a Fallout game. I don't care who has the rights and what the title is, this is not a continuation of Fallout from 1997 and the name could as well be coincidental. It literally has so little in common with the originals that it can barely be called Fallout-themed shooter. More like Fallout-inspired. So I decided not to look at it as a Fallout game but as its own individual thing.

Now, I'm not saying that it's a great game. But it's decent. And I'm really confused. Everyone told me that it's worse than Fallout 3, not only people on NMA, but even Fallout 3 fans who never played the originals - and you know, if these two groups agreed on it, something must be up. But I've played Fallout 4 and I can't think of anything, literally anything that it would do worse than Fallout 3.

Obviously, combat is much, much improved and now the game is even more focused on it. I think we can safely say that Fallout 4 is a sandbox shooter game, not and RPG. And it's a decent sandbox shooter. I had fun with it. Fighting with enemies or sneaking by them just felt good. Not anything great, but it certainly wasn't bad. The overall game mechanics were also much improved and it didn't feel like the game was fighting me the whole time.
I also like the visuals, I like the new art style and most of the new designs. The ruins of the city look especially great. The plot, writing, dialogs, characters, worldbuilding - it's all terrible of course but still better than in Fallout 3. The most important thing for me is that there's much less stupid shit. Actually, there's not that much of it in Fallout 4 - the most prominent was the kid in the fridge ex aequo with the baseball guy in Diamond City, I think. Speaking of which, the cities are a HUGE improvement over Fallout 3. There are normal cities in the game! And Diamond City doesn't even feel that much dead and artificial, at least not as much as I expected. I also like how we got four factions now (three, actualy) and none of them is the right choice. Sure, the factions are really poorly written and The Institute doesn't make much sense when you think about it but there's no clear black and white. Don't get me wrong, I liked Fallout 4 for the action part, not the plot, but despite being bad, it's still an improvement. By the way, isn't it wonderful, how the best part of this game is the one that Beth didn't make?

I'm not saying it's a great game. It surely wasn't worth the full price and I'm the last person on Earth to defend Bethesda. My point is, you must be out of your mind to say that Fallout 4 is worse than Fallout 3. I can't find any potential reason to think so. Seriously, Fallout 3 was so bad it's surreal. I sometimes think it was all just a fever dream and that game didn't actually happen. Apart from writing etc. being insultingly bad, the combat and graphics were also a disaster thanks to the engine (which, sadly, was carried over to New Vegas) The only thing that comes to my mind is that Fallout 3 allowed for a bit more role-playing, but frankly, I'd rather have a more focused open-world action game than a half-assed RPG-masquerade. Many bad things can be said about Fallout 4, but if someone likes it, I can see why. If someone likes Fallout 3, I can't.

As for Fallout being butchered by Beth, I don't care. We got Resurrection, Nevada and Sonora is on its way, this is more goodness than I'd dare to wish for. Seriously, if someone told me ten years ago that so many new Fallout games are coming, I would have shit myself. These are actual new Fallout games, why aren't they having more attention?

E: New Vegas on Fallout 4 engine would be the shit. I know there's mod being made but let's be honest, it's never coming out

 

[Deleted member 116891]

I played fallout 4 first, then 3 (Yeah, talk about diving into the franchise in the worst way!)

I do have to disagree though based purely off a difference in priorities. The issue with Fallout 4 is that despite it's nice art direction and attempt at having a faction choice, the actual gameplay just is the kill-loot-return loop, with no player choice almost at all, that is so uninspiring, compared with proper Fallout games (I realise you've said you don't regard it as a continuation, but as my first introduction to what was, to the uninitiated, a AAA rpg franchise it was very disappointing.) It reminded me so much of skyrim, which is as fallout 3 is to you, the worst game I've ever played bar none.

After this, Fallout 3 felt like a step up (bear in mind at this point I've not played any of the classics or NV,) it felt like they were trying (badly) to provide player choice in a world of desperation. There are some rpg elements there, poor as they are, and the side content especially does the job at making you feel like a God or devil depending on your actions. Compared to Fallout 4, where pretty much everyone does everything the same way and there's no way to communicate with anything properly, this is a step up. It's rubbish, but it's crafted rubbish by people who (somewhere) wanted to make a good game. Fallout 4 feels like cynically made trash by comparison.

Of course I then played NV which blew them out of the water....

Fallout 3 fans disliked 4 due to their God or Devil status being revoked, kooky characters being changed to bland stereotypes and the fact that FO3 BOS were not heroes anymore (see a lot of the latter which irritates me a lot)


Hope that goes some way to showing how I hold the opposite perception to you on the two games, coming at it from a different perspective as I do.

 

[NMLevesque]

you must be out of your mind to say that Fallout 4 is worse than Fallout 3. I can't find any potential reason to think so.

The ironic thing is that you haven't actually explained why you think any aspect of Fo4 is improved. You just kept saying 'this is better'.

 

[NMLevesque]

On the other hand...

Fo4 looks smoother, but its level design is really samey. By contrast: there's barely even anything to communicate what locations are before the game tells you with text. The stories told by locations rarely have any arc to them. Iconic flair is mostly absent. Etc...

 

[mef]

The ironic thing is that you haven't actually explained why you think any aspect of Fo4 is improved.

I did explain, it's not dependant on the individual aspects but the overall: it's an action game so its core is combat - and combat in F4 is pretty good. F3 was a hybrid of a shooter and an RPG - both parts were bad. So in F4 one part is much better and the other is absent. I assumed there's no arguments needed when it comes to combat being better.

Of course, like TheOtherManInTheRoom said: if someone is looking for a roleplaying game, F3 may appeal more to him - just like someone looking for a superhero movie will choose Superman 4 over Schindler's List, but to say that the movie itself is better in what it is - I disagree. (Of course, it's a matter of taste and there's no use trying to convince someone that what he likes is worse but we can discuss what aspects are better or worse and why)

 

[SquidWard]

I might have considered Fallout 4 better if I hadn't expected Bethesda to learn from New Vegas. I think Fallout 4 is far worse than 3 but I was also looking for an action-RPG not a shooter sandbox. It just felt even worse when doing quests. If I wanted to play a shooter sandbox I would have chosen better games for it anyway. I think it fails overall.

 

[mef]

Well, as I said - my point is not that F4 is a good game, but that it's way better than F3. I probably wouldn't make this topic if it wasn't for almost everyone - no matter what their stand on the originals is - that F4 is worse or even far worse and I just couldn't find any arguments for it. I was curious why so many people think so.
(I think F1 is much better than F2, most people think otherwise but I can see why)

 

[SquidWard]

For me, it's just my expectations of the game and what it was. It didn't offer me choices, it gutted skills out, it made perks into a hybrid of what perks are and progression (if you don't buy the damage perks, you won't do enough in the game), and so on. It was just bad. Nothing about it made me think wow I can't wait to see how I can play that differently on a different character build! Because I couldn't. Sure Fallout 3 didn't have a lot of great stuff but at least Good/Bad/Neutral karma and skills and SPECIAL actually let you replay at some level if you really wanted to.

 

[mef]

I see where you're coming from, but didn't you think that the choice between The Institute, BoS and Railroad/Minutemen, while badly written, was still far better than all choices in F3 combined? And you actually got a choice, while in F3 you were a Brotherhood's bitch. Also, I'm glad the karma system is gone, it's existence was one of the biggest flaws of the originals. I think it's taking away all the depth when the game strictly tells me what it considers to be good and bad. In F3 it was especially terrible, apart from retarded rules like stealing from raiders being bad, the moral dilemmas boils down to

Spoiler

While I liked it in Fable, I find it totally unfitting in such setting as Fallout's

While in F4 karma system wouldn't make much difference, anyway, I liked how the game doesn't tell me what's right and what's wrong. To be honest, I didn't expect F4 to make me actually think who should I side with in the end.

 

[SquidWard]

I hated the karma system in any of the games, don't get me wrong and yeah the main quest of Fallout 4 presents 4 major options but usually I found myself forced to say yes to a quest or just walk away in 4. 3 gave me more options in the sidequests I feel, despite having karma affect it.

I'd really have to replay them to really assess how I feel about them side by side but even when I did revisit playing 3, I enjoyed it more than 4. I don't plan on playing either again though, so I'll stay with my opinion that 3 was better than 4. Skills and SPECIAL (yeah it's in 4 but it's not the same) help a lot too.

 

[tgawt]

I liked it.

really expected some 'le fallout 4 sucks' post so some random sucker could get e-points for agreeing with nearly everybody else on the website, pleasantly surprised to see a post like this.
fallout 4 is a fun game, and if you're looking for a fun game then fallout 4 delivers. its the hard truth that the fallout series won't magically get any better from here, and complaining about it on an obscure fallout forum isn't gonna change that, even if it is fun to attack virtual strangers over the internet. if you don't like the path modern fallout is going, vote with your wallets.

Now, I'm not saying that it's a great game. But it's decent. And I'm really confused. Everyone told me that it's worse than Fallout 3, not only people on NMA, but even Fallout 3 fans who never played the originals - and you know, if these two groups agreed on it, something must be up. But I've played Fallout 4 and I can't think of anything, literally anything that it would do worse than Fallout 3.

this always confused me too, i think its some weird hybrid for nostalgia for a game you dislike? fallout 3 is shit, and fallout 4 improves upon it in every regard. the gameplay, story, characters, the only thing that might not be AS good as fallout 3 is the exploration, fallout 4 feels way to colorful and way to disorganized for exploration to be enjoyable, and downtown is one of the most poorly designed areas in an open world game.

 

[Norzan]

They're both terrible, but Fallout 4 is the better of the two. Fallout 3 just horribly tries to be both a RPG and a shooter and just fails miserably at both. Fallout 4 at least drops the pretense of being a RPG and just focuses on the shooting and looting. The shooting is absolutely mediocre though, from bullet sponge enemies, terrible variety in weapons and stuff like different ammo types being removed from New Vegas. But at least the shooting isn't a colossal disaster like in 3.

They're both bad in story, characters, quests and everything involving RPG elements. And if i want to play something for just shooting and looting, i'll just play Stalker. Much better gameplay than Fallout 4.

 

[NMLevesque]

I assumed there's no arguments needed when it comes to combat being better.

If you don't argue your case, then we have no reason to accept it. The action side is improved as you can actually free aim properly, there's a sprint feature, etc (this is me, making your argument for you, because you're still to dense to figure out how to do it yourself), but at the cost of scrapping the RPG side of combat. So no, combat is not better; it's different, and the loss of RPG elements is bad because they added a lot of value.

I see where you're coming from, but didn't you think that the choice between The Institute, BoS and Railroad/Minutemen, while badly written, was still far better than all choices in F3 combined?

No. Why did you think it was?

Also, I'm glad the karma system is gone, it's existence was one of the biggest flaws of the originals. I think it's taking away all the depth when the game strictly tells me what it considers to be good and bad. In F3 it was especially terrible, apart from retarded rules like stealing from raiders being bad, the moral dilemmas boils down to

Without a functional reputation system to replace it, what little the karma system added is simply lost. As bad as it was, nothing is not better. Some character react differently based on karma. That's something.

...fallout 3 is shit, and fallout 4 improves upon it in every regard. the gameplay, story, characters, the only thing that might not be AS good as fallout 3 is the exploration...

How or why do you believe this to be the case?

They're both terrible, but Fallout 4 is the better of the two. Fallout 3 just horribly tries to be both a RPG and a shooter and just fails miserably at both. Fallout 4 at least drops the pretense of being a RPG and just focuses on the shooting and looting. The shooting is absolutely mediocre though, from bullet sponge enemies, terrible variety in weapons and stuff like different ammo types being removed from New Vegas. But at least the shooting isn't a colossal disaster like in 3.

They're both bad in story, characters, quests and everything involving RPG elements. And if i want to play something for just shooting and looting, i'll just play Stalker. Much better gameplay than Fallout 4.

You've got a bit of a double standard here. If the story is bad on both then there you treat them as identical. If the shooting is bad in both then one of them is superior.

I would add that the looting isn't good either. Yes it has some UI enhancements, but one has to take into consideration how it works in practice. You are basically required to play as an extreme hoarder. This ruins the experience beyond the repair of UI, because there's no way to enjoy doing it that excessively. The biggest issue is how it infiltrates every moment of your experience.

 

[Norzan]

No real double standard there. They both fail in RPG elements, quests, characters, writing, but Fallout 4 is the better game because the shooting isn't a complete trainwreck like Fallout 3.

If you are implying that mediocre is the same as bad, then it's not. Mediocre isn't the same as bad, it's just below average. Fallout 3 gameplay is a colossal disaster and it's flat out terrible.

And if you mean me calling both terrible, two things can be terrible but one can be better than the other. Terrible isn't a static measure of quality, there are different levels of terrible. There's terrible but it could be fixed and then there's terrible but it's completely ireedemable.

 

[mef]

you can actually free aim properly, there's a sprint feature, etc (this is me, making your argument for you, because you're still to dense to figure out how to do it yourself)

If you don't argue your case, then we have no reason to accept it.

As I have never seen anyone in any discussion about F4 stating otherwise (and I have read a lot of it), I didn't feel the need to explain something everyone can see and agrees. If someone disagreed or asked me why I think that, then I would elaborate. Do I also have to explain to you how to wipe your ass?

but at the cost of scrapping the RPG side of combat. So no, combat is not better; it's different, and the loss of RPG elements is bad because they added a lot of value.

And what exactly is missing? If anything, F4 made it even more complex. In F3, the only "RPG elements" in combat was pumping skill points into your combat skill of choice and voila, maybe with addition of medicine for better stimpacks (press-not-to-die button). In F4, there's division between melee, pistols, rifles/shotguns and automatic weapons damage, accuracy when not aiming, damage dealt with hitting enemies with range weapons (a new feature), return of the medicine skill for better stimpacks and perks regarding radiation, which now actually matters during combat. Your stats now determine for how long you can sprint. Stealth can give you a much greater tactical advantage than in F3 and NV.

No. Why did you think it was?

There was actually a problem with no obvious answer, all factions had some valid points, you can actually see the problem in the gameworld (as opposed to your dad's stupid water that nobody needs except for the two karma vending machines outside of "towns" and you have a water-purifying robots in your house). You have to choose whether synths can be considered human and think how they will affect the world.

Some character react differently based on karma. That's something.

People are divided into good, bad and neutral. Good boy sheriff won't like you because you stole a bunch of ammo from someone on the other side of the worldmap while no one was looking at you. Killing random psycho raiders who attacked you makes you a good person. A game is bragging about having morally gray choices at the back of the box while it explicitly tells you what it considers good and bad. And for some reason people think it's a great thing.

If the story is bad on both then there you treat them as identical. If the shooting is bad in both then one of them is superior.

Seriously?

You are basically required to play as an extreme hoarder. This ruins the experience beyond the repair of UI, because there's no way to enjoy doing it that excessively. The biggest issue is how it infiltrates every moment of your experience.

That's a complaint I've heard many times, but it never happened to me when I was actually playing.

 

[NMLevesque]

As I have never seen anyone in any discussion about F4 stating otherwise

That's not how argumentation works. Grow up.

If someone disagreed or asked me why I think that, then I would elaborate

I asked. You did not clarify. Don't be childish.

And what exactly is missing?

-proceeds to mention things that are missing-

I suppose you're just returning the favor by making my argument for me, but this is just getting silly.

In F4, there's division between melee, pistols, rifles/shotguns and automatic weapons damage, accuracy when not aiming, damage dealt with hitting enemies with range weapons (a new feature)

Wat. If you're just going to write gibberish then there's even less for me to respond to.

There was actually a problem with no obvious answer, all factions had some valid points, you can actually see the problem in the gameworld (as opposed to your dad's stupid water that nobody needs except for the two karma vending machines outside of "towns" and you have a water-purifying robots in your house). You have to choose whether synths can be considered human and think how they will affect the world.

Oh boy...are synths human? That's the big improvement? Yikes. Sorry, but simply asking a question and dropping the mic before walking off stage is not good storytelling either. One has to explore an idea, i.e attempt to meaningfully answer the central question.

Also, the 3rd gens literally have human DNA. Phylogenetically the answer is yes, they are human. Morphologically that is also the case as they appear to have entirely homologous anatomy. The real question would be 'are they people?' They can pass the Turing test, and any other applied to homo sapiens sapiens. In no way are they not shown to be our intellectual equal. This is not something that can be faked.

And for some reason people think it's a great thing.

Ikr, but you do realize that I wasn't suggesting it was great? I mean, I did belabor the point about it being, only at best, better than nothing. There's no way you could possibly misunderstand something so obvi--

Seriously?

"Norzan said" what I was responding to with that bit....

That's a complaint I've heard many times, but it never happened to me when I was actually playing.

That could only occur by ignoring all of the crafting/settlement parts of the game. So either you play the game, and have to, or you only play part of the game to avoid it. Whether you're daft enough to think or pretend otherwise is anyone's guess, but your track record isn't exactly suggesting anything positive.

 

[NMLevesque]

No real double standard there. They both fail in RPG elements, quests, characters, writing, but Fallout 4 is the better game because the shooting isn't a complete trainwreck like Fallout 3.

If you are implying that mediocre is the same as bad, then it's not. Mediocre isn't the same as bad, it's just below average. Fallout 3 gameplay is a colossal disaster and it's flat out terrible.

And if you mean me calling both terrible, two things can be terrible but one can be better than the other. Terrible isn't a static measure of quality, there are different levels of terrible. There's terrible but it could be fixed and then there's terrible but it's completely ireedemable.

You would have to suggest that Fo3 and Fo4 are equally terrible at every non-combat thing for it not to be, and that's just false equivalency so yeah...double standard.

 

[Black Angel]

You would have to suggest that Fo3 and Fo4 are equally terrible at every non-combat thing for it not to be, and that's just false equivalency so yeah...double standard.

Pardon, but I don't understand what you specifically mean with, "You would have to suggest that Fo3 and Fo4 are equally terrible at every non-combat thing for it not to be,". "Not to be" what? Because I don't get that kind of impression from Norzan's post. His posts are pretty clear to me, so I wouldn't call Norzan's comparison double standard since the compared objects being judged originate from an exact same source: Bethesda.

Double standard in this context would be to call New Vegas shit because it's a buggy mess made by Obsidian, while forgiving the buggy mess of Fallout 3 because it's made by Bethesda. The judgment falls upon the bugs, but the treatment is different because of the cause.

Meanwhile, Norzan correctly judge that Fallout 4 definitely improve upon Fallout 3's shooting mechanics. Yes, it's still mediocre, and the other aspects like story, writing, RPG elements, etc etc are just like Fallout 3's or even outright worse. But since there's improvement in one major aspect (shooting mechanics improved from bad to mediocre), then by that standards Fallout 4 is the 'better game' than Fallout 3.

It's not double standard because Norzan could simply create a table and list a lot of gameplay features and mechanics for Fallout 3 and 4, put a 'Bad' rating upon story, writings, quests, characters, RPG elements, etc etc for both games, but only put a 'Bad' rating upon Fallout 3's shooting mechanics while putting 'Mediocre' rating upon Fallout 4's.

 

[NMLevesque]

"Not to be" what?

Not to be a double standard.

Yes, it's still mediocre, and the other aspects like story, writing, RPG elements, etc etc are just like Fallout 3's or even outright worse.

That's patently false. It's dialogue system for example is much worse. Also, why bury the salient point in the middle of your comment? Why not just reply to what I was specifically arguing?

 

[Black Angel]

Not to be a double standard.

......

That's patently false. It's dialogue system for example is much worse.

That still doesn't make any sense. "Norzan would have to suggest that Fo3 and Fo4 are equally terrible at every non-combat thing for it not to be a double standard" is what you say, and I see that it's exactly what he did. TL;DR Norzan thought Fallout 3&4 were all equally terrible at many things except for the combat system where Fallout 4 is 'better' than Fallout 3's, even though by general standard it's mediocre through and through.

But yeah, I'd admit that Fallout 4's dialogue system is definitely much, much worse compared to even Fallout 3's, but I think you insisting that Norzan's been putting a facade of double standard when judging the games being discussed is kind of too much; you'd better off pointing out that Fallout 4 ALSO has worse dialogue system despite of combat improvement. No need to accuse Norzan of having double standard.

Also, why bury the salient point in the middle of your comment? Why not just reply to what I was specifically arguing?

But that's exactly what I did? The reason why I put more paragraphs is because I want to elaborate further on what I'm really saying.