Fallout 4

[gourimoko]

The game is essentially the Skyrim-version of Fallout: New Vegas.

I personally love the game; but I also love New Vegas and FO3. Like @howler1313 said, if you like those games, you'd probably like this one. In fact, I'm not sure how you wouldn't..

There are plenty of technical problems, and I mean plenty. The graphics engine is also really bad, not in terms of quality, but performance.

I'm also not really a fan of the town-building.. I think it wasn't done very well. I would've preferred they linked Fallout Shelter to FO4 and just let you use the two games interchangeably to manage your vault/settlement/people. That would've been much better.

There are a lot of beginner-friendly improvements including:
the removal of Hardcore mode,
the removal of weapon/armor conditioning (sucks),
the removal of the skill system,
the removal of the level cap,
2-4x the experience for a quest,
shorter levels,
easier quests,
shallow water not giving Rads,
luck being so overpowered,
guaranteed criticals outside of sneak,
ridiculous damage bonuses,
removal of damage threshold,
removal of skill checks (stupid),
quicksave throughout the game,
instant power armor,
reduction in ammo types,
guaranteed DMG,
immortal/essential NPCs throughout the game*,

.. the list goes on and on and on. This game, while not holding your hand through tutorials, is extremely easily compared to FO3 or New Vegas, let alone FO1, 2, or Tactics.

*In Fallout New Vegas, there were only 2 adult essential tagged characters. Just 2 out of a thousand. Everyone else in the game, human adults, can be killed in some fashion or another. They do this so you don't kill people who might give you a quest at some point, and they do it by default. Rivet City in FO3 is a perfect example of this. It's lazy, and takes away from the game.

With that said though, this is the easiest Fallout of them all, by far. Again, it is very much like Skyrim in this respect.

All in all, I still love the game largely because of love this kind of game. Just as KOTOR1&2 were both highly flawed, they're still great games. So, in the same respect, I give it this an 8.5/10. While being glitchy and flawed, the game is still engrossing and that's really why I play.

Can't wait for the next New Vegas-style sequel to come out.

 

[MD13]

The game is essentially the Skyrim-version of Fallout: New Vegas.

I personally love the game; but I also love New Vegas and FO3. Like @howler1313 said, if you like those games, you'd probably like this one. In fact, I'm not sure how you wouldn't..

There are plenty of technical problems, and I mean plenty. The graphics engine is also really bad, not in terms of quality, but performance.

I'm also not really a fan of the town-building.. I think it wasn't done very well. I would've preferred they linked Fallout Shelter to FO4 and just let you use the two games interchangeably to manage your vault/settlement/people. That would've been much better.

There are a lot of beginner-friendly improvements including:
the removal of Hardcore mode,
the removal of weapon/armor conditioning (sucks),
the removal of the skill system,
the removal of the level cap,
2-4x the experience for a quest,
shorter levels,
easier quests,
shallow water not giving Rads,
luck being so overpowered,
guaranteed criticals outside of sneak,
ridiculous damage bonuses,
removal of damage threshold,
removal of skill checks (stupid),
quicksave throughout the game,
instant power armor,
reduction in ammo types,
guaranteed DMG,
immortal/essential NPCs throughout the game*,

.. the list goes on and on and on. This game, while not holding your hand through tutorials, is extremely easily compared to FO3 or New Vegas, let alone FO1, 2, or Tactics.

*In Fallout New Vegas, there were only 2 adult essential tagged characters. Just 2 out of a thousand. Everyone else in the game, human adults, can be killed in some fashion or another. They do this so you don't kill people who might give you a quest at some point, and they do it by default. Rivet City in FO3 is a perfect example of this. It's lazy, and takes away from the game.

With that said though, this is the easiest Fallout of them all, by far. Again, it is very much like Skyrim in this respect.

All in all, I still love the game largely because of love this kind of game. Just as KOTOR1&2 were both highly flawed, they're still great games. So, in the same respect, I give it this an 8.5/10. While being glitchy and flawed, the game is still engrossing and that's really why I play.

Can't wait for the next New Vegas-style sequel to come out.

Gour, my main story complaints are that Bethesda can't keep going with the hammy main plots and complete lack of character development. It was fine 5 years ago, but now I think we deserve more. Fallout NV was much better at this, but i think they need to reinvent the wheel a little bit to allow for more narrative.

 

[gourimoko]

Gour, my main story complaints are that Bethesda can't keep going with the hammy main plots and complete lack of character development. It was fine 5 years ago, but now I think we deserve more. Fallout NV was much better at this, but i think they need to reinvent the wheel a little bit to allow for more narrative.

I'm actually glad the main story isn't that developed. Fallout isn't really the kind of game for that. Fallout has never told a meaningful story, it's not really a good vehicle for doing so, IMHO.

In a game like The Witcher, Dragon Age, KOTOR, or say, Mass Effect, there is an overarching story and your character is a part of it. Your choices can and do effect the story in some ways, but overall the end result is generally the same. You have moral choices, and depending on those choices influence some aspects of the narrative.

In Fallout, traditionally, the narrative is really not important. Go get the Water Chip, Go get the GECK, Go get the GECK again, Go find Benny, Fight at the Hoover Dam; these are all just backdrops - they aren't intended to provide a meaningful story.

Fallout, Elder Scrolls, etc, are games of open-ended exploration. The more they put the character on rails, the more they move away from what Fallout really is. Even giving him a wife and a voice is a bit much, because it limits who and what you are.

So to me, I don't really want them to change that aspect of Fallout. The spouse instantly dies, and the baby is kidnapped -- allowing you, the player, to continue on with the story with those things simply being plot devices (like Fallout 3).

I think, if you're coming from a game like The Witcher, and expecting the same experience but in the Wasteland, then you're going to be let down. That's not what Fallout is supposed to be, and I don't think that should change.

p.s.
tl;dr: how do you build a story around the Brotherhood of Steel, if they are all dead? Why are they dead? I killed all of them.... they are all dead.

Either you prevent me from doing so, which sucks (essential NPC tag), or you don't include them in the main story arc. You can do this for pretty much every faction/character in the game to a large extent.

Everyone should be able to be killed, and the player should have maximum freedom. This style of play largely prevents the developers from creating/developing characters and plots in a meaningful way.

 

[MD13]

I'm actually glad the main story isn't that developed. Fallout isn't really the kind of game for that.

In a game like The Witcher, Dragon Age, KOTOR, or say, Mass Effect, there is an overarching story and your character is a part of it. Your choices can and do effect the story in some ways, but overall the end result is generally the same. You have moral choices, and depending on those choices influence some aspects of the narrative.

In Fallout, traditionally, the narrative is really not important. Go get the Water Chip, Go get the GECK, Go get the GECK again, Go find Benny, Fight at the Hoover Dam; these are all just backdrops - they aren't intended to provide a meaningful story.

Fallout, Elder Scrolls, etc, are games of open-ended exploration. The more they put the character on rails, the more they move away from what Fallout really is. Even giving him a wife and a voice is a bit much, because it limits who and what you are.

So to me, I don't really want them to change that aspect of Fallout. The spouse instantly dies, and the baby is kidnapped -- allowing you, the player, to continue on with the story with those things simply being plot devices (like Fallout 3).

I think, if you're coming from a game like The Witcher, and expecting the same experience but in the Wasteland, then you're going to be let down. That's not what Fallout is supposed to be, and I don't think that should change.

I dont necessarily need the whole overarching plot, but I go through these games and cant name a single character after. I think Skyrim was the absolute worst example of that. I'd like to feel *some* emotional attachment beyond just going around and fixing things (although dont get me wrong, that's fun as well).

 

[gourimoko]

I dont necessarily need the whole overarching plot, but I go through these games and cant name a single character after. I think Skyrim was the absolute worst example of that. I'd like to feel *some* emotional attachment beyond just going around and fixing things (although dont get me wrong, that's fun as well).

I hear you bro, I do... I'm seeing a lot of the same things being said on the internet.

My only thing is that what folks are asking for, by asking for developed characters, plot, narrative, is antithetical to what Fallout is. It's like asking for a completely different game that isn't Fallout.

Narratives and plot development are anything but new in gaming. Interplay/Bethesda largely left this out of Fallout by design. Obsidian, known for great character development (KOTOR2), left it out as well. The nature of Fallout doesn't allow for it.

I think if there is a New Vegas style FO4, you'll see even less essential NPCs and connecting stories.

If they were to force a narrative in the game, I wouldn't really want to play it... it'd be disappointing. That isn't Fallout.

p.s.
I can name all of the characters from FO3/NV.

 

[Jack Brickman]

I think Bethesda really needs to choose what they want to do. Either you commit fully to an epic story about a father going to great lengths to find out what happened to his son in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, or you scrap that aspect altogether and make it the story of a lone survivor waking up from cryofreeze and making his way in an unfamiliar world with no ties to his old one. The search for the son just seems shoehorned into the current experience because it refuses to commit either way.

And to be fair, this is a problem with a lot of open world games, as inevitably most are going to throw tasks your way that are unrelated to the main plot. Witcher 3 had a similar issue, in that the hunt for Ciri was supposedly very important, yet Geralt took the time to leisurely ride the countryside and take odd jobs. It made more sense in that game seeing as that was basically Geralt's profession and lot in life, but it was still a noticeable disconnect.

Mad Max, mediocre as the game itself may be, was a pretty good example of how to structure a post-apocalyptic open world game. There was minimal story outside of building an awesome car, and almost every mission in the game had to do with building the car, or at the very least befriending people who would help you build the car or killing people who are already after you. The story was stupid, sure, but it knew what it was and what it wanted.

 

[gourimoko]

I think Bethesda really needs to choose what they want to do. Either you commit fully to an epic story about a father going to great lengths to find out what happened to his son in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, or you scrap that aspect altogether and make it the story of a lone survivor waking up from cryofreeze and making his way in an unfamiliar world with no ties to his old one. The search for the son just seems shoehorned into the current experience because it refuses to commit either way.

But haven't they always done this? In every Fallout game? They've never committed to a story, because it's not important.

This is no different than FO3 with the search for your father, or in New Vegas when you find yourself tracking down Benny. FO1, 2, and Tactics, all have these types of main stories that are tangential to the game.

I think people forget this, and continue to compare Fallout to games that are very dissimilar.

Mad Max, mediocre as the game itself may be, was a pretty good example of how to structure a post-apocalyptic open world game. There was minimal story outside of building an awesome car, and almost every mission in the game had to do with building the car, or at the very least befriending people who would help you build the car or killing people who are already after you. The story was stupid, sure, but it knew what it was and what it wanted.

I'm pretty sure the bolded is true for every Fallout game ever made.

 

[Jack Brickman]

But haven't they always done this? In every Fallout game? They've never committed to a story, because it's not important.

This is no different than FO3 with the search for your father, or in New Vegas when you find yourself tracking down Benny. FO1, 2, and Tactics, all have these types of main stories that are tangential to the game.

I think people forget this, and continue to compare Fallout to games that are very dissimilar.

My point was that Fallout 3 and 4 half-committed. In 4, you see your wife die in front of you and your son kidnapped. That's presumably very important to the main character and something he should probably address, like, immediately. But then the game turns into a farming simulator, and you wander around aimlessly doing odd jobs. You could live with putting off going after Ciri in Witcher 3 because, you know, she was a fucking sorceress who could bend time and space and presumably take care of herself for a couple of days without Geralt, but in Fallout 4 your character is of the opinion that his son is still an infant (I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess he's wrong but I'm not that far in the main plot yet). Rescuing him would be a goddamn priority, because infants wouldn't last long in Fallout's world.

If the whole point of the game is exploration and dicking around, why not just sever all the ties to the character's previous life? Why not have his wife and son die in cryofreeze (or just not exist at all), leaving him to make his own way through the new world he's awakened to? Why bother with the "rescue the son" storyline at all when it's not necessary to enjoy the game?

The story in Witcher 3 made sense. Witcher 3 was a big, epic fantasy game and needed a big, epic story complete with big, epic set-pieces. It delivered, even if the side missions were often better than the main. Fallout doesn't require a big, epic story and attempts usually fall flat due to Bethesda's godawful engine and character animations.

I mean, would anyone here really care if they removed the main plot, or at least altered it so it wasn't really personal on the side of the main character? Hell, there is a group in the game dedicated to fighting against the Institute, which would easily provide a way to work in the pertinent aspects of the main story without the "rescue the son" anchor.

 

[gourimoko]

My point was that Fallout 3 and 4 half-committed. In 4, you see your wife die in front of you and your son kidnapped. That's presumably very important to the main character and something he should probably address, like, immediately. But then the game turns into a farming simulator, and you wander around aimlessly doing odd jobs.

If the whole point of the game is exploration and dicking around, why not just sever all the ties to the character's previous life? Why not have his wife and son die in cryofreeze (or just not exist at all), leaving him to make his own way through the new world he's awakened to? Why bother with the "rescue the son" storyline at all when it's not necessary to enjoy the game?

Jack, that is the entire point of these games. Have you played through the entire Fallout series before? All of them are like this.

Every single one of the games, all of them, start out this way. Remember if you don't get the water chip, then everybody dies? It's imperative that you do, until you realize it doesn't mean anything. Remember the GECK? Remember joining the Brotherhood of Steel and going on missions or else game over?

The game always starts off this way.

The story in Witcher 3 made sense.

...But, Fallout isn't supposed to play like the Witcher - it doesn't have a story and isn't supposed to, epic or otherwise.

I mean, would anyone here really care if they removed the main plot, or at least altered it so it wasn't really personal on the side of the main character? Hell, there is a group in the game dedicated to fighting against the Institute, which would easily provide a way to work in the pertinent aspects of the main story without the "rescue the son" anchor.

I really don't know why this is even an issue though. I mean, the Benny story can be completed in 90 minutes. You can finish FO1's main story in less than 2.5 hours, yet the game is easily 75 hours long.

I'm just not sure if we're really working from the same frame of reference. This is just like every other Fallout game.

It seems like people are expecting a different game; and they want to "change" core aspects about Fallout. I don't really see why one needs to do this. If you want an epic game with deep characters and story, play this isn't the game for you.

Imagine picking up Fallout 2 and saying "where is the character development?"

I don't want Fallout to play like that. I want a completely open-world game.

 

[Jack Brickman]

I don't think we disagree here, gouri. I don't think Fallout 4 should play like Witcher 3. In fact, that's my entire point. And saving your infant son just seems a bit more important than fetching a water chip. Fetching a water chip is a task. Saving your son is a story. I wish they'd just have you wake up and go on your way.

 

[MD13]

All this stuff about narrative aside, the biggest problem I have in the game is how old it looks. So much of open world games is about exploring and that sense of wonder, but by today's standards FO4 looks pretty shitty.

 

[gourimoko]

I don't think we disagree here, gouri. I don't think Fallout 4 should play like Witcher 3. In fact, that's my entire point. And saving your infant son just seems a bit more important than fetching a water chip. Fetching a water chip is a task. Saving your son is a story. I wish they'd just have you wake up and go on your way.

I think the only thing we disagree on is making Fallout play like Witcher 3.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Witcher series; I think they're great games.

But they are very different games, and if Fallout were to play like the Witcher then it wouldn't be Fallout anymore.

And with respect to the "saving your son" aspect, I think that's not that different than Benny shooting you in the face and burying you alive. Or, just as not getting the water chip meant imminent death for everyone you've ever known; I dunno if I would call it a task.

See, to me, I think we shouldn't expect Fallout 4 to play anything like the Witcher, or Mass Effect or Dragon Age, etc. If it did, it would lose what makes it uniquely Fallout.

p.s.
Everything that's happening and the way it's happening is just as it has been in the other Fallout games. Main story contains quests that require you to progress and make allies, get things, etc, then wraps up in a few hours and you go on your way. AFAIK, you can complete the main story in a day (less than 10 hours), it's not that long and there's nothing keeping you from doing it.

 

[Chris]

Loving the game, but I thought this was going to be The Witcher 3's main challenger for GOTY and after playing it for a while, I feel pretty safe in saying The Witcher 3 pretty much has GOTY locked up and is truly the defining game of this year, and not Fallout 4.

I do wish Fallout 4 had more of a story, or just plain a better one. I know as Gouri said that Fallout hasn't really been about storytelling but I thought they had said there would be a renewed focus in Fallout 4 on this. Overall, it seems pretty lame in that aspect, and on top of all the technical issues and dated look....

I'll enjoy the shit out of it for a couple months, though, that's for sure.

 

[Jack Brickman]

I think the only thing we disagree on is making Fallout play like Witcher 3.

But I'm not saying that Fallout should play like Witcher and never have said that. I was comparing the two simply because they both feature a main story that involves the main character finding their child (sure, Geralt isn't actually Ciri's father, but both of them view him that way) and why that narrative device works better in Witcher 3 than it does for Fallout.

 

[gourimoko]

But I'm not saying that Fallout should play like Witcher and never have said that. I was comparing the two simply because they both feature a main story that involves the main character finding their child (sure, Geralt isn't actually Ciri's father, but both of them view him that way) and why that narrative device works better in Witcher 3 than it does for Fallout.

I just don't think the comparison really makes sense, even though it's so widespread.

Both are "open-world" sandbox games, but to very different extents. This is why your character is almost nameless throughout the Fallout series. Whereas the Witcher (or ME, or DA), is about a particular person. This is why people suggested the main character shouldn't even be voiced.

Who is The Courier, or the Vault Dweller? They aren't meaningful people until you play their story out, and everyone's story is completely different.

Geralt is a specific character with a specific story. You can't say the same for the Courier, for example.

You can't have this degree of openness while having a consistent meaningful plot-driven storyline. It's not possible.