Why do so many people love Skyrim but hate Fallout 4?

[ironmask]

I'm not trying to defend Fallout 4, it's a shitty ass game so is Skyrim, but what bugs me is that so many Skyrim fans hate fallout 4 and praise Skyrim and say that it is one of the best RPG's ever. The reason this bugs me is because they both share almost every problem you think of. Glitches, awful combat, level scaling, dump down mechianics, shitting on lore, etc. Are people just turning a blind eye on Skyrim because for many it's baby's first "rpg"?

 

[Norzan]

From what I've been noticing, Skyrim has been criticized more and more often the more time passes. I'm not afraid to admit that i actually enjoyed Skyrim back when it came out, but now i think it's a giant pile of shit.

I'd wager a bet that a lot of people that praise this game is because Skyrim was literally their first RPG (if you can call it even that). Now they have the nostalgia googles blinding them to all the major flaws the game has.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Just a loose guess...

ElderScrolls has always depicted a magical golden-age —on the verge of conflict, but while there is still time to save it. It's a beautiful place full of mystery, majesty, and general wonderment... It's a genuinely nice place to visit.

Fallout has always depicted a ruined remnant of a golden-age —the character makes the most of the garbage heap left behind. Fallout is best if you (the player) are not personally the character; hip deep in the garbage. Fallout's environment (when done properly) is depressing as hell, and is best experienced third person.

Bethesda's mistake was in naively applying the Elderscrolls FPP game template to the Fallout IP. It drops them into a wasteland full of destroyed dreams, and instead of having a positive effect on the player outlook, it (not surprisingly) makes them depressed.

I think it was probably worse in the early stages of making FO3.. when they decided to cut out large chunks of the world; (presumably to give it a faster pace, and make it less of a drudge; ergo... less depressing).

 

[CT Phipps]

I'm not trying to defend Fallout 4, it's a shitty ass game so is Skyrim, but what bugs me is that so many Skyrim fans hate fallout 4 and praise Skyrim and say that it is one of the best RPG's ever. The reason this bugs me is because they both share almost every problem you think of. Glitches, awful combat, level scaling, dump down mechianics, shitting on lore, etc. Are people just turning a blind eye on Skyrim because for many it's baby's first "rpg"?

Because Skyrim is one of the best games of all time and Fallout 4 is crap?

No, seriously, Skyrim has deep lore and excellent characters plus many fun lengthy questlines. Enough for 4-6 games. Fallout 4 is half-finished, has barely present lore, and all of its missions are virtually the same with no ability to do anything differently. You're always speeching or killing.

At least in Skyrim you can kill in varieties of ways.

Fallout 3 was awesome, btw.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I can't speak for everyone, but I liked it because it was mindless shit. That's pretty much it.

 

[ironmask]

No, seriously, Skyrim has deep lore and excellent characters plus many fun lengthy questlines. Enough for 4-6 games. Fallout 4 is half-finished, has barely present lore, and all of its missions are virtually the same with no ability to do anything differently. You're always speeching or killing.

I gotta disagree with you there. Most of the good lore is just lore taken from Morrowind, everything else was just bland and generic fantasy, also the lore for Skyrim that was already written in Morrowind was more interesting than the retcons in Skyrim(the game). I will admit that Skyrim has more positives than Sellout 4 and that it does have some fun quest, but Skyrim still has a ton of negatives to really be called a good game or an rpg.

 

[Norzan]

Skyrim has probably the worst Thieves Guild questline in the series. Just how it starts by some asshole coming up to you and say you looked like you never once worked in your life. The nonsensical writing, plot holes and forgettable characters that show up after that are just so terrible.

Overall Skyrim is just so bland and awful to me. I can no longer play it, even modded, after playing much better RPGs.

 

[ironmask]

ElderScrolls has always depicted a magical golden-age —on the verge of conflict, but while there is still time to save it. It's a beautiful place full of mystery, majesty, and general wonderment... It's a genuinely nice place to visit.

Fallout has always depicted a ruined remnant of a golden-age —the character makes the most of the garbage heap left behind. Fallout is best if you (the player) are not personally the character; hip deep in the garbage. Fallout's environment (when done properly) is depressing as hell, and is best experienced third person.

Bethesda's mistake was in naively applying the Elderscrolls FPP game template to the Fallout IP. It drops them into a wasteland full of destroyed dreams, and instead of having a positive effect on the player outlook, it (not surprisingly) makes them depressed.

I don't think Skyrim fans hate F4 because it has a depressing atmosphere, I have never seen a Skyrim fan say that, they hate f4 for all the reasons I pointed out, glitches, awful combat, level scaling, dump down mechianics, shitting on lore, etc. Which is why I ask the question why people love skyrim but hate f4 when they share the same exact problems. If anything Fallout 4 lacks an atmosphere it's too positive for it's setting.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I don't think Skyrim fans hate F4 because it has a depressing atmosphere....

They might not even notice it on a conscious level.

If anything Fallout 4 lacks an atmosphere it's too positive for it's setting.

That's the first clue... Bethesda learned their lesson with FO3. (To the detriment of the IP. )

 

[ironmask]

Skyrim has probably the worst Thieves Guild questline in the series. Just how it starts by some asshole coming up to you and say you looked like you never once worked in your life. The nonsensical writing, plot holes and forgettable characters that show up after that are just so terrible.

Skyrim doesn't just have the worst theives guild questline, all the factions are shit and the worst in tes franchise. Each faction has these stupid epic storylines that are poorly writtien and have you doing the epic shit right away after joining a faction and are treated like a special snowflake after doing one or two quest.

 

[ironmask]

The might not even notice it on a conscious level.

Still not convinced that it's the "depressing" atmosphere. Like I said fallout 4 doesn't even have much of an atmosphere anyways.

 

[CT Phipps]

Oh, BS, people actually think any of the Oblivion quests are better than the Skyrim ones? Ridiculous.

I gotta disagree with you there. Most of the good lore is just lore taken from Morrowind, everything else was just bland and generic fantasy, also the lore for Skyrim that was already written in Morrowind was more interesting than the retcons in Skyrim(the game). I will admit that Skyrim has more positives than Sellout 4 and that it does have some fun quest, but Skyrim still has a ton of negatives to really be called a good game or an rpg.

And yes, Skyrim's lore is the same as Morrowind's but it's still awesome lore. Also, I loved the steampunk dwemer, Thalmor, and Falmer. I also disagree it's Bland and Generic FantasyTM since that was Obsidian while Skyrim went with Vikings instead of the High Middle Ages. Which is pretty different in a lot of ways. It's the second most used fantasy setting in some places but it's sharply different.

 

[Norzan]

Oh, BS, people actually think any of the Obsidian quests are better than the Skyrim ones?

You mean New Vegas? Come Fly With Me is better than all of the quests of Skyrim combined because it has way more interesting characters and different ways to be tackled. And this one, as i'm noticing lately, it's one of the least liked quests in the game to a lot of people.

Most of the quests in Skyrim is you being treated like a special snowflake just because you are the "Dragonborn". And most of them are just "go to a dungeon and either get this or kill this guy" because the quest giver is too lazy to do anything on his/her own.

Unless you mean some other Obsidian or some other game by Obsidian.

 

[R.Graves]

Skyrim, while being mostly shallow, still has a much larger scope than Fallout 4. Encompassing several towns and at least trying to depict the clash of cultures. It also for the most part follows established lore. It's not a masterpiece. It's a 7/10 maybe a 7.5/10. Anyways point being within the context of either franchise skyrim is actually a rather solid entry by its own franchises standards. By Fallouts standards fallout 4 is an utter disgrace.

 

[namad]

I think it comes down to people playing fallout4 and expecting shooting to work well. As in, well, compared to other games where you shoot guns. Skyrim doesn't have any guns, so the fact the engine doesn't do shooting that well doesn't matter.

That said skyrim's archery is probably the best in the series, and woe be tide to anyone who tries to be an archer in morrowind. The glitchy combat doesn't seem to come up or matter in skyrim, because no one expected the combat to be any good in the first place. Although on top of that I do think obsidian's writing in FNV shows up the writing in FO4, I found myself starting to find FO4 dull. However part of the dullness of FO4 is the radiant quest system from skyrim being cranked up to 11, in skyrim you rarely got radiant quests, but in fallout4 you can have a dozen at once, and early on even. Radiant quests are shit, because they have LITERALLY no writing. On top of that hoovering in fo4 is something that starts to feel mandatory, but then weight limits. In skyrim you pickup stuff you like, because honestly, you don't really need any of it, and so the scavenger hunt doesn't become a burdensome aspect of play.

On top on top on top of that, fo4 isn't really an upgrade on skyrim, and yet came out many years later. Witcher3 for example. Skyrim was ahead in the calendar. However things like witcher3 and the new wolfenstein (1st one not recent one) were out in time to compete for people's memories when fo4 rolled around. Now ubisoft makes an open world game 5 times a year. But in skyrim's day the formula still seemed "fresh".


TL;DR;
No they don't at all in anyway share the same problems. Who told you that?
Yes, the mistakes made in both games are the same mistakes by the same people, but the expectations, context, competition, and order of release date changes drastically how one might view the game.

 

[CT Phipps]

You mean New Vegas? Come Fly With Me is better than all of the quests of Skyrim combined because it has way more interesting characters and different ways to be tackled. And this one, as i'm noticing lately, it's one of the least liked quests in the game to a lot of people.

Most of the quests in Skyrim is you being treated like a special snowflake just because you are the "Dragonborn". And most of them are just "go to a dungeon and either get this or kill this guy" because the quest giver is too lazy to do anything on his/her own.

Unless you mean some other Obsidian or some other game by Obsidian.

No, I meant Oblivion and sadly made a typo.

====

Ultimately, I think what appeals to both Fallout 3 and Skyrim is both games are very good at immersing you in a new world. They're first and foremost Walking Simulators with Combat. The point of the games are exploration, meeting new people, soaking up the beautiful scenery, and gathering treasure/loot.

Plus, the slaying of dragons as well as feral ghouls.

The Commonwealth of Fallout 4 is just....uninteresting. The characters are uninteresting, the settlements are uninteresting, the environments are uninteresting (oh, is that what trees look like?), and the plot is uninteresting.

Plus the shooting is stupid with the Instant Mutations, no level limits, and uninspired monsters.

 

[R.Graves]

No, I meant Oblivion and sadly made a typo.

I'd argue that quests are one of the few things oblivion has over skyrim. Granted that's a big thing to have in terms of an rpg. Also I remember for some reason being really fascinated that oblivion acknowledged taxes.

 

[CerberusGate]

I'd say that at the time of Skyrim's release, there was a strong hype train (I remember the excitement in anticipation for Skyrim's release at the time) and coming from Oblivion, Skyrim's gameplay on the surface seemed like an improvement (though there are things that Oblivion did better than Skyrim i.e certain side-quests, guilds etc.). The game did have a sandbox that was interesting to mindlessly explore and discover (though made less interesting with the retcons of lore from Arena, Daggerfall and Morrowind though tbh, Skyrim was less affected by the retcons compared to Oblivion and Cyrodiil) plus due to being Bethesda's own IP. I admit that I had fun with Skyrim back then but nowadays I can barely muster any will to attempt to reinstall Skyrim let alone play it.

4's problems, as many have pointed out, could be Bethesda's attempts at applying the formula they have used for TES to Fallout and it backfiring this time due to how lazy the execution was this time and how different Fallout is from TES.

Oblivion

I'd argue that Oblivion had some decent side-quests. Glarthir's quest would be one, Whodunit for the DB being another. In fact, I'd argue that guild progression in Oblivion is a lot better than Skyrim's abrupt progression like the Mages Guild requiring the PC to obtain multiple recommendations to join the Arcane University (even if obtaining them does not require knowing magic like Skyrim's College). Not that the writing is any good (especially the Mages Guild's quest that ends with a nerfed Mannimarco 'boss' fight).

 

[CT Phipps]

I think the power fantasy element is also there.

In Skyrim, you can become an unstoppable dual wielding fighter/mage demigod that is basically Darth Vader in dragonbone.

In Fallout 3, you are the Messiah of the Wasteland. The one who single handedly restores peace and justice to a doomed land.

In Fallout 4?

Well, you blow up the Institute but while they're assholes, they're also possibly the most scientificially advanced community left and you resolve it by committing genocide.

To compare it to Fallout 2, the people of Vault City 2 are slaving assholes.

But who would feel it's a good thing to blow it up?

 

[Deleted member 93956]

But who would feel it's a good thing to blow it up?

Probably because even among the whacky nonsense of Fallout 2 they remind you that it's human lives and the establishment of civilization you're ruining for your pettyness, and shiiiet. And the better way to do it is sway them and show them that outsiders can be as trustworthy as themselves, even if that's not a specific game objective.