Well its been what almost three years since the release of Fallout 4. Do not get me wrong it is a beautiful game, Power Armor is amazing, the environment is gorgeous. Combat is really nice for once. But here is my thing it lacks choice,consequences to choice, many side quest just feel like hey go fetch. No real in depth actions/dialog to make you really think hard of to do this or not to do it or save someone.

Like you start off with Fallout 4 you go to Concord and the museum of Freedom. The raiders just attack you. But it does make for a pickup of action right away. Once you go inside the museum you can tell Preston to screw off but then the game tells you to go to the roof anyways fully ignoring your choice. Then your choices do not have really much effect until the end when it comes to what faction you will side with for an ending.

Fallout 3 and especially NV we had in depth conversations multiple ways to do and or end a quest, almost every action had a consequence. Fallout 4 is pretty much a straight line to the end. Where past fallout games you have your starting point but then the tree of choices branches and each quest had its own branches. Past Fallouts oh it was brutal on choices, and the freedom of what you could do in terms of conversation, how to treat other NPC's with a slight dash of comedy much like NV.

I do like 4 but in comparison to the past games it really fell flat on its face. Its like Bethesda has abandoned what made their games interesting especially what made Fallout such an in depth game like they abandoned its core principles. The path Bethesda is headed down is like they are trying to stream line their games taking the easy way out, and shoving as much eye candy as possible at their customers to distract from the fact they have stripped so much of the core principles that really made past Fallout games so interesting with so many choices with so many branches to do a quest even a side quest. Fallout 4 is like a straight line with a few side branches here and there.

Then Fallout 76 its like oh lets see how much money we can get out of these people with multiplayer, and merchandise as we have seen merchandise has become a big thing with Bethesda. I understand they are a business, but if they put as much time and effort into their games and their production they could get game of the year every time. The smaller game awards they got game of the year for four I about laughed, am not a Witcher fan but three kicked Bethesda's pants off every way since Sunday.

So what do you all think? Honestly 1-3 and NV where better games by staying true to what Fallout is and was supposed to be. 4 just feels so shallow and lacks a major element choice and consequences.

That is not an easy question to answer. As it is rather a Yes and No result. Gun play, Weapon customization and graphics make 4 far surperior. However storyline. Roleplay choices etc the previous fallouts far outpace it.

Voiced Protaganist? Hmm I both liked and disliked it. I did feel more drawn to the character but it didn't leave alot of option for different role play styles. You were pretty much restricted to the "Good guy" or "Sarcastic guy" the voice acting didn't lend itself to a so called evil/raider style. thank fully mods removed the voice which was ok.

The no real bad guy play style was kinda crap for FO4. Only with Nuka World was a lackluster evil option tacked on.

FO3 and New Vegas had much better evil options and consequences for doing such which made your choices feel alot more impactful.

I think if we discount the originals 1&2 and just consider the newest generation of Fallouts. My order of games would be

Best gameplay/Combat mechanics - FO4 (although melee needs work and no dual wield? seriously?)

Best storyline and choices - Fallout New Vegas

Best cityscape/environment - Fallout 3. The DC ruins are to this day my favorite areas in fallout gaming history

its a tough one to answer. in many measurable ways Fallout 4 is a superior game to 3 and new Vegas.
the FPS gameplay is much better, looks better visually...etc. but it really lacked in some key areas.
Personally i think F4 needed another year of development. Some of the new stuff was not fleshed out enough , and there was a real lack of engaging side quests, and the main story was weak in comparison.

however, i don't buy into the argument that Bethesda "dumbed down" F4 just to make money.
I think there was genuine intent here to evolve the franchise, and it just needed more time in development.

But of course

Every other fallout before 4 was better, dialogue, RPG, characters and locations all that together makes a good fallout, 4 had "decent" gunplay, but that's not why i play this franchise, if i just wanted to shoot at things every 5 minutes i would look for a CoD or a Battlefield, or any other damn FPS. every aspect in 4 was dumbed down, streamlined, more focused on the casual audience.

First of all, the forced protagonist origin, why the fuck should i care about Nora when she was killed at the start? why should i care for Shoun either?(which is central focus of the game during the first half of the game) just... why? they could have at least expanded some of the pre-war part a little just so i could feel a little more into it every time i want to start a new game and go through all that crap over and over. Or idk idk, just simply don't do it, so i could you know, create MY OWN character?

Yes, the voiced protagonist ruined and limited the game and modding possibilities, the dialogue was a clusterfuck, aside from the fact that you didn't know what you character was about to say, the skills and skills checks and perk system totally removed was just what i said above, dumbing down(compared to past titles) instead we got a skill tree that we could eventually be completed and be the almighty settlement god savior of the wastes(cuz, you know, no level cap) no weaknesses at all, no character.

The settlement system could have been a good addition to the game, if it wasn't forced to you, the game was build around it, that and Preston being a fucking pain about it(which btw, all the goddamn minutemen thing was utterly forced for you to do, you couldn't just say "Well i don't know why i should give a fuck about these guys" and walk away, you couldn't progress in the main storyline without siding with them.

It can have clunky or good gunplay or be turn based for all i care, i'm there for the RPG, the moral dilemmas, the great written characters and factions to chose, all that with different outcomes, NV already showed us how a Fallout should be.

@celtic_spike  Obsidian had 18 months to make NV, Bethesda had 5 years with a larger budget and more people, They had the time and all the stuff required to make a great "post nuclear role playing game" but they didn't.

ElMaldito wrote:

@"celtic_spike"  Obsidian had 18 months to make NV, Bethesda had 5 years with a larger budget and more people, They had the time and all the stuff required to make a great "post nuclear role playing game" but they didn't.

yes Obsidian made a better game, but lets be fair. they didn't build new Vegas from scratch . they were able to spend most of those 18 months on the story, characters...etc.
they didn't need to build an engine, and make every asset from scratch. yes they improved the engine in a number of ways but comparing development times is not fair IMO.
Fallout 4 did not deliver an experience on par with NV and F3, no one can deny that, but I think people are WAY too hard on Bethesda over it.

Yes.
But you're saying past Fallout games were better which would include Fallout 3. So really, just Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas were better. Brotherhood of Steel, Fallout 3, Shelters, 4 and most likely Fallout 76 all sucked. Many of these Fallout games by Bethesda have all been poorly written, poorly thought out and never understood the franchise.
Fallout 3 was even worse than Fallout 4 with absolute awful gameplay, terrible and an uninspired story and hardly any meaningful choices or messages. Comparing Fallout 1 to 3, there has been a significant downgrade with nuanced villians, stories, meaningful messages and RPG elements. Fallout 3 is such a laughable mess it surprises me how it became the highest rated Fallout game by critics.
Why make a great RPG that have serious impacts on the world and characters when you can streamline it to the point where it's unrecognisable and the style of Fallout is gone. It seems like the more streamlined the games are, the more welcoming it will be to players and thus they'll make more money. Fallout 4 was incredibly successful so we'll never get another Fallout game, you know one that is actually a Fallout game.
Really, Bethesda sucks at making games with good story-telling and sucks at making RPG's. Maybe Morrowind was good but I don't know because I haven't played it. They make such gimmicky things like nuking your friends, blowing up Megaton for shits and giggles when Fallout isn't about that. How people deal in a world like that, forming ideas or a nation, these are the things that make Fallout Fallout. This is Bethesda failed to understand when making them.

EDIT: @ElMaldito Even though New Vegas didn't have good gunplay (neither did Fallout 4), I'm there for the RPG elements and the story. I can forgive a game for its faults but when the story sucks and the overall gameplay sucks, what does the game have to offer? Fallout 4 failed on this on so many levels.

I would say yes. Even still though I would take Fallout 4 over Fallout 3 haha. But the originals and New Vegas? Nah, they're a thousand times better in everything except game play. But as others have said above gunplay isn't what the series is about.

Even then New Vegas has plenty of mods that vastly improve the game play. Animation mods - especially animation mods - and really mods in general give the game a completely different feel than what the base game is. Things like Asurah Reanimation Pack, Solid Project, Live Dismemberment and Project Nevada heck even Enhanced Camera so you can see your damn feet alters the game play experience.

Mods aside the writing in Bethesda games are... meh. Very much so. Fallout 3 has a good example; Megaton. The game literally punishes you more for outright killing Moira Brown than blowing the town itself up. Probably because the writers invested too much in her character and questline and felt killing her off would kill one of the few interesting characters.

Now compare that to Junktown in Fallout 1 where you can either help the goody-two shoes mayor get rid of the corrupt business owner Gizmo or vice versa. Doing 'the right thing' by getting rid of corrupt shadiness in the town can be considered morally right, but what really happens if you do this is kill off a large source of income for the town. On the flip side helping Gizmo, 'the bad guy', brings prosperity to Junktown as his business generates an economy.

Then there's the Enclave in Fallout 3. Pretty much the only 'human' moment I ever found in the game is Raven Rock's mess hall where you can see a bunch of utensils had fallen through the metal floors. Meanwhile in Fallout 2 the Enclave personnel have quite a few interactions when you sneak into their base. Such as the two vertibird mechanics Raul and Quincy who have what appears to be a rivalry going on. You can even pull the 'that guys talking shit about you behind your back' on one of them to get what you need after they leave to confront the other mechanic.

Bethesda knows how to make exploration sandbox games, I'll give them that, but their writing leaves something to be desired. How they still haven't gotten any decent writing force after all this time is beyond me. For devs that pride themselves on single player experiences, minus 76 of course, this is a problem I feel.

Edit: Oh and also, Fallout 4's settlement system. Forgot to mention that. There's no point, really. What good and bad does it add to the overall story by helping or not helping these settlements? Even less than Megaton in Fallout 3. Heck even New Vegas towns despite not having big focus due to the game's time frame it had been developed has more of an impact to the story than Fallout 4 settlements. Help Goodsprings get rid of the Powder Gangers and if you choose the Mr. House ending, a credit slide shows that securitrons had been sent to the small town as a gesture of thanks for saving the Courier.

Pretty much yeah.
Even if the gameplay portion of past fallouts (though I enjoy turned based combat) were not as polished as 4 - they were definitely more interesting.

Its hard to be immersed into story of 4, since you're only allowed to roleplay as two people (also theres no time to develop an attachment to Shaun so gives a fuck). What's left is the sidequests, and the combat, the settlement system.

The combat is fun tho the music gets old quick. This should've been focused on less and the sidequests shouldve been MORE INTERESTING. THE QUESTS ARE SO BORIIING. Like you have multiple ways to do a quest (somewhat) but picking between revealing the truth or staying silent for some money is nothing compared to Beyond the beef in new vegas.

I can't say much about the settlement system (cause i dont have the creativity or the interest to develop a town) but it shouldn't be the focus of one MAJOR faction.

This is the game unmodded btw, im sure some of it is less boring with mods (but there is very little you can do to the base questline story) (also its intensive on my PC so not an option for me)

I would have to say,kind of. Fallout 4 definitely did improve on some things,like the shooting mechanics(still kind of wonky,but better than 3/NV),graphics,and so on. The settlement building was also a nice addition,if not a bit too mandatory. However,they also changed a lot of things that shouldn't have been changed. Oh,you know what I'm talking about. The RPG mechanics,dialogue system,voiced player character with an already existing backstory,and so on. To me,Fallout 4 is a fun game,but it just fell victim to mainstreaming and streamlining of essential mechanics to make it approachable by people of any gaming background. Because of that,I see FO4 as a spinoff game rather than an essential entry into the franchise. (I know it is a main game and due to how well it sold,Bethesda will likely continue with this streamlining,but as famous Mythbuster Adam Savage once said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own.")

mostly, I don't like FO 1 as much as other classic fans do, and you don't have to dig too deep to find out I'm not a massive fan of FO 3, and I would rather play FO 4 before either of those games, but not much holds a candle to FO2 and NV in my book.

I liked the more old school fallout's with more of a need for the role playing aspects as it really let you make and mold your character as you will but with fallout 4 you really can't get the same sense of being able to call your character as really the story of your character is determined and doesn't let you expand on it much. It really is quite a sad that you couldn't choose from a wide variety of different people instead of being a war vet every time but I guess you make due with what you get right?

Honestly, was there even a need for this? One glance at the Fallout Discussion sections says all that needs to be said, even more obvious if you look anywhere else on the internet, go to r/Fallout, YouTube, NMA or RPGCodex and simply observe the hate that flows around for Fallout 4.

This is simply just going to be another circlejerk about how NV is best and anyone that says otherwise are not true Fallout fans.

I think the thing that grinds my gears the most is the repetitivity of the criticisms. Honestly, nobody can say anything bad about Fallout 4 other than roleplaying aspects, storyline or voiced protagonist, etc?

I can admit that Fallout 4 was a disappointment for many, but so was New Vegas and 3. There’s still a huge number of fans that won’t lay a finger on the classic games because of how old and different they are. It doesn’t make them intrinsically bad games, but they just aren’t satisfactory for their fanbase. Just as new players hate the old Fallout games for it’s clunkiness the older players hate Fallout 4 for it’s lack of roleplay.

I personally don’t think Fallout 4 even compares in replayability to the older games, but I don’t need anybody to constantly validate my view, unlike many others.

Like I love Fallout 4 how it looks, the environment, the combat system and power armor, but much of the dark humor, choices to shape the commonwealth to even side quest feeling more important it is really lacking. Like I said in my original post you tell Preston to piss off and the game is like ok whatever just you go get that core, get on the roof, get in the power armor, grab the minigun and save Preston and his gang. The game lacks choice and real consequences for most of the game. A lot of the dark humor is even pulled out, to even the nitty gritty that past games had. NV wow that game is crazy on how you decide the fate of the Mojave. Fallout 4 more or less operates in a straight line in terms of the main quest and even side quest. Like remember Harold from Fallout 3 Multiple ways to kill him, or convince him that life is worth living that these people depend on him. Or NV you could side with yourself, House, the NCR, or the legion. Multiple ways to do each one. Even deciding the fates and outcomes of the gang families, the residents of New Vegas. Individual NPC's. Even the past Fallout Games were brutal and the choices insane, even the consequences for your actions.

I personally hate almost everything about FO4. The graphic design makes it feel so cartoony, The only thing they got right was the combat, not the mechanics, but how it feels. The settlement system needed tons of fixes to get it to work smoothly. Past fallouts like FO3, FNV were great, atmosphere, RPING, Great.

Yes however i'd accept a Fallout games like 4 any day over 76.
just thinking about 76 pisses me off

gibons45 wrote:

Yes however i'd accept a Fallout games like 4 any day over 76.
just thinking about 76 pisses me off

@gibons45 God, I'd have to agree with you. 76's multiplayer aspect sounds awful and repetitive, gather supplies, fight off super mutants, gather more supplies, team up to fight more super mutants, gather even more supplies, rinse and repeat.
I guess saying that you, the player, can come up with your own story is a much easier way for Bethesda to not tell an actual story.

I saw a post a while back. Fallout 4 was a decent game; but not a good Fallout game. I have always found my calling with Fallout: New Vegas. The lore, the choices, the roleplay ability and the pure environment was perfect to me...it still is.

I haven't played Fallout 4 close to a year now. I just lost interest, there were no defining choices and it seemed a little cartoonish for my taste.

With the reveal of Fallout: 76 I have little faith in that game. Once they introduced multiplayer I was actually pretty sad. I want to create a story for my character by making decisions with factions, not by recruiting real people (with a vulgar username) to help me destroy someone's shack just because they looked at me the wrong way
North Korea Simulator confirmed.

Anywho donta, I agree with everything you said and then some. I miss the good ol' days, seems that New Vegas activity is somewhat dying with everyone modding FO4. Even with mods, I can't play it more than 30 minutes without being bored.

Thing is, the parts that are better about 4, aren't essential to an RPG. Better gunplay, graphics and the likes aren't really essential elements to building a rich world and setting. In fact, it one of the disconnects between a lot of modern RPGs and the old school RPG games.

Fallout 4 loses itself in trivialities that don't matter, like voiced protagonists and Codsworth saying your name. They don't matter in the slightest and they don't make the game any more fun, if anything, it's a bit jarring to choose an option in mind, and hear it blurted out by a voice I don't associate with. This can work in games like Witcher, because we're going in with a pre-set character. But Fallout isn't Witcher. It's something that didn't work for Dragon Age, SWTOR, or Fallout, and I wish developers would stop using it like it's this breaking edge IMMERSIVE storytelling device. It isn't.

The things Fallout 4 gets wrong are far more detrimental than what it gets right. The games roleplaying ability is stunted not only by it's voice acting (with the VAs emotions sometime coming off too strong or too off for the dialogue line you chose) but by the lack of choice, or freedom to pursue different paths. I can't get Preston to move on with his life at all. I can't get him to stop asking me to lead the minutemen regardless of the choices I make. Thus Preston as a character has no use to a non minutemen character. It's a design goof. There is only one path there and the option to ignore it, which is not a path because it changes nothing for the character of Preston. Take Moira in Fallout 3 as an example. We could tell Moira to give up on her dream of a book, and she would. Never asking us about it again. This could easily have been done with Preston, possibly taking his character in a more nihilistic, cynical direction, which would be infinitely more interesting than what we got. It's the lack of branching paths that really make quests suck and character interaction dull. No matter what choices the player makes, they all wind up leading to the same place. Disappointment.

Now the story of 4 actually has the potential to be great. The institute is a fresh villain that is surprisingly well fleshed out, and diametrically opposed to the Brotherhood of Steel, who believe in safeguarding against the very core values of the institute. The Railroad provides a good "neutral" foils to this war and it creates a good dichotomy of good and evil that is far deeper than Bethesda's typical "here are the goodies here are the baddies" stories. But it's so mired in this lack of choices and lack of real focus on the games true issue, the synth threat. Synths feel like an after thought at times, even though they are so integral to the game. They aren't like the mutants of Fallout 1, who trickle in slowly and are silently claiming power through the Cathedral and it's cult but instead they are just kind of around in certain places. We are told that Synths are infiltrating, but it's never really a big contentious issue. Where was the quest where the Brotherhood player investigates the head of the largest city in the commonwealth, Diamond City, over his supposed Synth roots? Where is the mission where the Institute player infiltrates the Railroad, or the Railroad player contacts the reporter who is constantly going on about Synths? Where's the focus? It's lost and instead we go on dumb kill this mission after kill this mission. There are no quests that require any level of intellect, or allow for different ways of approach. Everything is just a big blaze of glory that is ultimately made redundant once you realise there is no real sense of accomplishment in any of these outcomes.

Ultimately, the main story falls flat because it's executed in a way that's entirely uninspired. Fallout 4 is a shooter/action game masquerading as an RPG. FPS is where the game really shines, everything else combat wise is just weak. New gameplay elements like Power Armour and building are great and fun, but they are undermined by just about everything else. I get that Bethesda were super excited about these things, but making building so essential to the game, and power armour instantly accessible cheapens these significantly. This is why I feel it's worse than the other Fallouts.

Other than Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, of course. May that game return forever to the hell it was spawned from, and never return.

@IRORIEH Well said, forgot to put that on my comment about the PA being given to the player so early in the game and so easily to find later on. Oh also, let's not forget the damn retcons, 4 butchered the lore like no other Fallout.