So, I've been wanting to post about this topic for awhile but it always ended up being far too long. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that someone else had already made a video about it, and even more about the fact that he lays out the case perfectly (considering the kind of absolute, total morons that usually make Fallout content - Oxhorn the worst of them - I wasn't expecting to find such a good video). I know it's rather long but it's worth it.





Topics

- The problems with pleasing the fanbase
- The genius of the junk economy
- Why FO4 is not only an RPG but an excellent one
- Why the game did the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system better than ever before
- Why skill points are NOT a good way to represent character growth
- What makes The Commonwealth such an excellently designed setting
- Proper enemy variety
- Why the factions are excellently designed.

And more...

For the longest time, hbomberguy's Fallout 3 hitpiece plagued the recommended of many a Fallout fan's recommended. Then along came "Fallout 3 is better than you think" by MATN, which completely dismantled and destroyed the arguments of the former, while bringing up integral points to the overall game design, rather than minor nitpicks like the former. This video in the OP is just another example of this.

Now I completely understand that Fallout 3 and 4 aren't perfect games, but neither is New Vegas and it should be acknowledged as such. When hbomberguy kept bringing up New Vegas to insult 3 and 4, he failed to mention the differences in philosophy of game design and the differences between 3/4 and New Vegas from a purely technical standpoint. He also conveniently decided to not mention arguments that would trip up his own.

For the first half hour, hbomberguy only ever talks about how overblown the reviews are for Fallout 3. He fails to mention that Fallout 3 was received so well as a result of Bethesda taking a dead franchise and bringing it back from the dead. When you put the overwhelmingly positive reviews in context (and also bear in mind the overall quality of the game), it all starts to make sense why Fallout 3 is the best reviewed Fallout game of all time.

One of the first points hbomberguy made which made me click off the video and come back to it to form my opinion on it in small, digestible chunks was the sheer ignorance of his point that Fallout 3 forces the player to kill NPCs in the tutorial section. He fails to note that you can go through the entire Vault sequence not even harming a radroach (outside of the one when you get the BB gun as a kid). You can run past the Vault security, and there's even occurrences which allow you to do so. The radroaches attack and distract the Vault security long enough for the player to make a dash for the nearest corridor. They are literally scripted to do so.

So when MATN makes a video like this and "Fallout 3 is better than you think", even if it doesn't really matter to me since I will make my own opinion on the games anyway, it brings a smile to my face.

Thuggysmurf made a good point in one of his articles on the Nexus. While I don't use his mods, he essentially made the point that more people play Fallout 4 than New Vegas. New Vegas is cheaper and more accessible to weaker hardware, so why do more people still play Fallout 4? While Fallout 4 is weaker from many elements of it's design in comparison to New Vegas, people still play Fallout 4, meaning to them, Fallout 4 is an overall better video game more worthy of their time. While it doesn't necessarily matter to the average individual what the majority thinks, it's proof that the hate for Fallout 3 and 4 derive from a very vocal minority, likely from NMA or the RPGcodex.

While I don't disagree with this point, I have my own views on Fallout 4. I have dumped around 1500 hours into Fallout 4 on Steam and Xbox One. I have dumped around 2000 hours into 3 and New Vegas each if you total my hours on Steam and 360. The last time I actually even fully played 4 was maybe a year ago. Every time I have tried to get back into it, I just couldn't. The linearity of it's design repelled me. New Vegas has similar problems, yet I have no problem getting back into that game. With Fallout 3 I don't have this problem either. While Fallout 3 determines my backstory for me, I'm free to explore once I exit the Vault and go anywhere I please. New Vegas's map design can be very linear at times. For instance, you have to go down the route through Primm/Nipton/Boulder City if you want to see all the quest stages and not miss out on 45% of the experience. In Fallout 3, the world is accessible from the very start bar high level areas like Old Olney, and that's how it should be in my mind. Fallout 4 is similar, but instead of starting you out slap bang in the middle, it places you very close to an invisible wall on the North of the map, and this falls into the same problem New Vegas had where it places you in between a Deathclaw sanctuary and the edges of the map, meaning you once again have to go through the preset route.

I can't believe that I'm actually agreeing with professional critics, but Fallout 3 deserved it's must-have status and it's critical acclaim. I know this isn't the point of the thread and video, but I would just like to give appreciation for MATN's "Fallout 3 is better than you think" video. In 2021, it's easy to shit on a game that was released 13 years ago that many young players haven't played. What people fail to realize however, is that Fallout 3 is actually the best Fallout game in many ways, and I consider New Vegas my favorite. But 3 does so much more that it doesn't deserve the hatred it gets from the band of bandwagoning morons over on NMA.

Fallout 4 is similar in this regard. While I don't necessarily think it did things much better than 3/NV, I do think that it was a worthy successor. It tried to innovate in many aspects and brought many fun elements to the series that were overlooked and hated because they took center stage. Settlement building for one. While people shit on it, it was a brilliant idea that was just executed wrong.

@Heisenberg Hbomberguy is an idiot. And has one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard. I have no idea how the guy even has any subscribers, let alone 750,000. So you get no argument there.

But stepping away from that, did you actually watch the video? Because even me, I already loved the game before and it still managed to make me appreciate it even more.

I was one of the people that thought "FO4 is not quite as good as an RPG, but I'm fine with that because it's still better as a whole". He actually makes the point that FO4 is excellent as an RPG. And once you listen to it, he's absolutely right. That's why I gave up on writing this stuff myself, he already made the case perfectly.

@gavin gold I watched the full video when it first released. Video essays are long so I might have forgotten some of the points he made but I doubt it will change any of my opinions on the fact. From what I remember, I agreed with many of the points he made.

I just watched some of parts of it now and while I agree with him in how FO3/FNV SPECIAL is flawed, I don't think FO4's SPECIAL is a vast improvement. And I liked FO4's SPECIAL.

Many of my character builds in FO4 were just difficult to make. If I wanted to be a soldier I would have to drop my intelligence down to a measly 1 or 2 stat due to the lack of points, because in that build INT was practically useless from a technical standpoint. But that didn't feel right to me. Why is my character stat-wise a retard, but never acknowledged as such and is only a retard because they are competent with guns? FO3/FNV attributes are not perfect either in this regard. He is right that they are too generous with the points given.

For reference, watch some FudgeMuppet build guides. I used to follow their guides when I played the game a lot. There's many builds that just make no sense stat-wise but in gameplay it's the only true way to play the build. Take their STALKER build for instance. If you want to be a competent stealthy ninja, you also have to be a complete dumbass. It makes no sense. Yeah, this makes every stat point vital, but honestly? I would much prefer having the FO3 SPECIAL points.

Attributes are dumb in New Vegas, and part of the reason I think FO3 did it much better. Speech should only be a prerequisite for lines which bring rationality or debate into the conversation. Charisma should ALWAYS be a prerequisite for lines where the NPC is merely charmed by the character's demeanor. New Vegas puts a spotlight on Speech while ignoring Charisma and like he said, this results in builds where CHR 1 and Speech 100 is viable, which also makes no sense.

So in short, both of these systems are flawed. Personally I prefer the FO3 one, but each to their own.

Essentially the point I was trying to make last post was that I liked his Fallout 3 video and I was trying to make the larger point that his presence within the sphere is much appreciated by myself because by him making these videos, it shuts down the negative press. His Fallout 3 has more views already than hbomberguy's shitpiece.

@Heisenberg Fair enough, I know it's not like it will radically change anyone's mind (nor it should, because people should learn to think for themselves) but he does make a lot of good points and I'm hoping it encourages people to at least consider a different point of view.

One of the things that virtually everyone agrees, even the most ardent NV fans - and trust me, I love NV-  is that the gunplay is a lot better in FO4. People mod NV to its very limit in order to have decent FPS mechanics. And yet, they never stop to consider why the combat is so bad.  

Recently I had another attempt at FO2 and I was surprised how meaningful skills were. Skills are a proper representation of your character. You need them because, in an isometric RPG, you and your character are completely separated. You are not the one picking up the gun, aiming, shooting or reloading, your character is.

I say I was surprised because in NV, skills (outside of dialogue that is) are just gamey mechanics that get in my way. I'm a good shot, I know how to play the game, and yet if my character has low skill, bullets will artificially curve, making me miss. Alternatively, if I invest heavily in guns, bullets will curve the other way, going into the target even if I can't aim to save my life.

You can't have proper FPS mechanics, the kind of smooth gameplay that people want and expect, while at the same time relying so heavily on character skill. The two of them don't work well together. So when I saw that FO4 completely got rid of that system, I thought that was great. I really don't understand why people complain about it so much, as if scrapping an archaic mechanic somehow means you can't roleplay anymore.

It's not just in terms of combat btw. The hacking minigame, for instance, is another example of player skill vs character skill. Your character may have a very decent science skill of 60 but if you are bad at the minigame, you will be struggling with anything but the most basic terminals. Meanwhile, at 100 science, you will never fail a hacking attempt, even if you have no idea what you're doing, because increasing you skill reduces the amount of duds, and at that point, you will be getting just 5 possible options, and 4 attempts to find the right one. In reality, this means very hard terminals are the exact same as very easy ones. It's just not a good system.

Now, putting that aside, I saw his FO3 video as well, in fact that's how I found the channel. And even though most of what he produces is not really my thing, I'm also glad he's there, because I had pretty much given up on watching any fallout content. I don't know what it is but you so rarely find someone that makes any kind of fallout related videos that isn't a complete mouth-breather.

I've been wanting to do a video in defense of Fallout 4 for a while now but I'm just not the video makin' sort. There's so much in that game that's either misunderstood or a victim of misinformation. I believe MATN makes a point in the video of how most people don't realize that you can murk basically every faction leader in the game right when you first meet them -

Heck, I have discussions on more or less a weekly basis explaining how most 'lore breaks' people level at fallout 4 either started way earlier in the series or are completely misrepresented.

I played once, feel a huge jump from new vegas, but for some reason always return to play new vegas, maybe the mod community support, the plot, dont know exactly, but also agree F4 its a great sucesor

Fallout 4's world will never not be a disjointed mess of theme park ride dungeons. I doubt the videos address the problems I have with the game. Guess I'll find out once I find the time to watch them.

Edit: 20 minutes into the first video and this guy is more or less just a long winded, buzzword dispensing Bethesda fanboy. From the looks of the timestamps I was right. He isn't going to talk about the shit I don't like in the game.

I myself have been giving some thought into playing Fallout 4 again might port a lot from 76 BUT honestly that's all it needs in my view sure the story was lack luster but there are ways around it now am i saying FNV isnt better no it's S tier in my book but Fallout 4 is alright.

I think F4 has many strenghts, it's in no way a bad game. Aside from the obvious ones as gunhandling, or scavenging and crafting systems I didn't mind some of the "dumbing-down" as people call it:
- I think the perk system was handled good, it was neatly tied with stats and the I don't care about skills having number values just for the RPG sake.
- the power armor was totally over-powered and introduced very poorly, but it made you feel like you are wearing massive steel suit, not just a diferent apparel like New Vegas or 3.
- enemy ranks and variability was great (although its basically just more HP on stronger enemies) and I loved how certain enemies were handled, ghouls for example.
- Glowing Sea corner - that was just unforgettable, walking under that destroyed highway and seeing the field of bent trees as the sky slowly fell with green radiation dust .. that moment alone can add 1 score point to the review. Loved every minute spend in that area. This can stood proudly next to the Glow or Cathedral/Master Vault memory.
- companions and their reactions to your actions were handled very well
And many more qualities, that makes this game atleast worth trying, I myself spent in it atleast couple hundred hours.

That being said, after so many hours in that world I can't say I remember single NPC. Not one captivating quest, side or main. There are more the what, 2-300 locations on the map? I remember maybe 6. In the end I had to make myself finish it.
This game is textbook example of quantity over quality aproach. Such mindbogling amount of shallow forgettable experiences cramed together, such wasted potential. It just pisses me of how many great ideas it has that are just shrugged of by lazy, unimaginative, schematic writing. And they are not even hiding it, they shove it in your face with radiant quests and legendary loot. It is designed to keep you hooked on that satisfaction you get when XP meter is going up and nothing besides that. Check this guy video about it, it may change your perspective on some things, and not just in video games:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qbYj6Joc_U&t=42s
So I don't think so, Fallout 4 is a NOT better than I think. Its exactly just that - unsignificantly average.

Fallout 4 an action game with some elements of rpg,personally i don't like the lack of rpg elements and the retconing of the lore.

Call me a Fallout 3 and NV hipster but I didn't like the lack of weapon conditions. Also it's performance was a bit lackluster. I love Fallout 4 but I wouldn't play it without mods, that being said I'd still play New Vegas and 3 without mods if I'm being honest. Maybe with the stutter remover being an exception.
Fallout 4 just lacks so much to me but by no means is it a bad game, just wasn't a great one in my opinion.

@macejko @tm812 @Axl @Accelerator

Guys, listen. You can all have different opinions and maybe you don't agree with the premise. That's fine. The problem is none of you are actually engaging with the OP, you're just repeating the opinion you already have.

Watch the video, it's the whole argument, that's why I posted it in the first place. Then, if you still don't agree, by all means post a comment and explain why the premise is wrong. But this isn't a thread to say the same things that have been repeated 1000 times already.

You guys should also watch this one. There's some several flaws in the MATM video.

Ultimately, I think whether or not you agree with the videos premise comes down to a matter of opinion. Frankly, I don't really give a damn about a lot of the things MaTN likes about Fallout 4. The world building, factions, skill checks, and unique loot(or more accurately their absence) is what matters to me.

The 4 hour hit piece the guy above me linked is mostly in line with how I feel, sans the pot shots at MaTN.

@EX-Mode You remember how I mentioned in the OP that I was surprised to find such a good video? That most Fallout YouTubers are morons? That's because most Fallout YouTubers produce videos like the one you just posted.

Now, normally I wouldn't bother with a 4 hour video, but you are the first person who actually wants to discuss the topic properly, so I will at least watch an hour.

First things first. The guy needs to learn to make a point. The video has a lot of drivel and a lot of commentary that doesn't have anything to do with the point he's trying to make. The first 10 minutes are spent only on rehashing his FO3 video and the bad blood between him and Jon. He doesn't actually talk about FO4 until the 42 minute mark!

Second, let me introduce a concept here, which you might have heard before but it's rarely correctly understood: Nitpicking. It's a deceptive style of argumentation. Rather than getting to the core of the issue, you start attacking every single little thing your opponent says, no matter if it's relevant or not, with the purpose of making him seem MORE wrong that he actually is. When people start to nitpick is because they don't have much to say about the actual core arguments. This will keep coming up.

Now. The first 42 minutes are, like I said, a waste of time. 10 min are spent only on the fact him and Jon don't like each other and the other, 30 are spent on Jon's introduction, that is, on Bethesda's process to make FO4 and why it's virtually impossible to please the fanbase. Creetosis starts that very critique by saying the process IS NOT IMPORTANT (12:54) and yet, rather than simply jumping to the part that is important, he uses those 30 min to nitpick and lie.

A good example of this happens just before this. At 12:14 Jon says "I hope that by the end, I might spark a renewed appreciation for how elegant some parts of this game are". Creetosis' response is "There's many words to describe Fallout 4, but elegant is not one I'd choose. In fact he frequently uses this word throughout this video to describe otherwsie basic systems, and it ends up being nothing more than a flowery buzzword to make the things he's describing sound better". That's the full quote.

This doesn't mean anything. It doesn't disprove Jon's arguments, which he hasn't even made yet. It provides nothing to substantiate Creetosis' opinion. It tells us simply that Creetosis doesn't like FO4 and doesn't agree with Jon's opinion, which we already knew. It's nitpicking. It's literally just "nuh uh". And if you pay attention, you realize this kind of commentary, right here, makes up around half of Creetosis' "arguments".

But I did say he was lying, and that's something I have to prove. At the 28 min mark, he shows a clip of Jon saying that with FO4, Bethesda did "what they always do, they threw everything out and started again". Creetosis takes this opportunity to call him a liar. He claims that if Jon is going to make such a claim he needs to present some evidence, and that he has researched this, and has found absolutely nothing to substantiate Jon's claim, essentially to tell the audience, Jon is just making stuff up as he goes. Which I found odd, because not only is this pretty much common knowledge - if you've played a few Bethesda games you know how much the formula changed from Morrowind to Oblivion, from Oblivion to Skyrim, or from FO3 to FO4 - but actually, JON DOES PROVIDE EVIDENCE. He explains exactly where he got this information just a few moments later at 33:25. I thought this was supposed to be one of those videos where the youtuber is reacting in real time and because he hadn't seen this part immediately he assumed it wasn't there, so now he would apologize. Or maybe he was being disingenuous from the beginning so he would simply skip this part. He SHOWS the clip, and not only does he not acknowledge this is what Jon was talking about before, he doubles down and tries to make Jon look bad by twisting its purpose completely, talking about sales and views and appeal to authority in a completely unrelated topic. Again, this is nitpicking, it has nothing to do with either person's arguments. And it means Creetosis either doesn't realize that what he asked for is right there, which makes him a idiot, or he does realize it but he's ignoring it to paint Jon in a bad light, which makes him a liar.

And finally one example of bias (this from the guy presenting his opinion as objective fact), which we haven't seen a lot at this point since the video has been mostly just character assassination, but I thought it was telling. At 39:18, he starts how FO3's tone (yes, he is still talking about FO3), how it ruins the tone and atmosphere because "the world is full of dumb, goofy characters" - which I agree - WHILE PLAYING NEW VEGAS, a game known for its humor, often dark, but not lacking its significant share of dumb characters: Fantastic, Swanick, FISTO, basically everything at big MT...

And at this point the real conversation hasn't even started!. You can see why I'm not particularly eager to hear what this guy has to say. But even if he's terrible at this, there might be some merit to what he says, and I did promise to hear him out. So I'll do it.

ARGUMENT I. THE JUNK ECONOMY

At this point I need to set the speed to 2x, because this part last ONE HOUR.. I'm nearly 2 hours into this, and this is only the first argument. And the main problem here is, Creetosis is being dishonest from the very beginning.

Let me remind you what Jon says at the very beginning: "I hope that by the end, I might spark a renewed appreciation for how elegant some parts of this game are". That's him telling you the purpose of the video. He isn't here to argue that the dialogue system was great or that the lack of (non radiant) quests was a great choice. We all know they're not. He wants to talk about the many gameplay aspects of the game that he believes doesn't get enough appreciation.

Creetosis response to this is "Right away, Jon tries to frame the existence of junk items as a problem, when it's really not" (44:40). First, that is entirely subjective - I know I sure appreciated this feature - and second, AT WHAT POINT DID ANYONE CLAIM IT WAS A PROBLEM? Jon is making the point about how FO4 manages to take something that was previously useless, not problematic but useless, and make it not just a meaningful, integral part of gameplay but also integrate it in a way that perfectly fits the franchise. Right away, Creetosis is having a completely different conversation. He makes it seem like Jon is this awful liar grasping at straws because all he wants to talk about is how FO4 doesn't satisfy what he was looking for rather than providing any meaningful rebuttal to Jon's arguments.

Now, look. This goes on for an hour, but the truth is, there isn't much there to talk about. Creetosis commentary is a disjointed collection of nitpicking, lying and generally missing the point, pretty much what I expected considering the first 42 min. But there is one interesting bit at the end which is another example of bias.

Starts at 1:41:55. I'm cutting a few less important parts for brevity: "...No matter what you do, you're always going to be Nate the Mayor, or Nate the Prospector, or Nate the Mercenary (...) One of the big criticisms of this game, is the fact that you absolutely cannot create the backstory for your own character.

In Fallout 1 and 2, some aspects of your character were established. You were a vault dweller or a tribal descendant of that vault dweller, but besides that, your history was pretty much open to interpretation and this allowed a fairly wide variety of character backstories you could write for yourself if you decided to do so."

New Vegas was the most open in this regard. The only things stablished about your character is the fact that you're working as a courier and you got shot in the head by Benny and survived."

First, notice what I was saying before, what he's talking about has nothing to do with the junk economy. But more importantly, I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to say this, THIS IS OBJECTIVELY UNTRUE.

In Fallout One you play as one of Vault 13's residents. In Fallout 2 you play as one of the tribal descendants of that vault dweller. In both games. You are presented with a character whose origin, motivations, quest, and story (at least the main parts) will be well defined. You can't play Fallout 2 as anything other than a tribal, you can't join the Enclave or simply forget about your family and decide to start a new life. There is room for you to determine how the character approaches whatever situations may arise, but these are far from the blank slates embarking in an open adventure that people make them out to be.

Meanwhile, not only did most of what I just said applies to FNV (the one, although very meaningful, difference is that you can choose your faction) but the courier has a backstory so detailed that I have to wonder whether it's possible that some people missed it completely because otherwise I don't see how you can claim the courier is just a blank avatar.

Compared to that, what exactly is this defined backstory we know about FO4's characters? The guy was a soldier, and if you don't choose him, his name will be Nate. The girl was a lawyer, and if you don't choose her, her name will be Nora. They have a son named Shaun. And I guess we see a little bit of the place they used to live before the bombs. That's literally it: profession, spouse, place of residence. Everything else is up to you. I'm sorry but Creetosis argument is a lie. A biased lie. All he has done to this point is try to derail the conversation to what he wants to talk about and yet the few criticisms he makes aren't even true.

Let's continue.

ARGUMENT II. CHARACTER BUILDING

This is the one I wanted to get to because I felt this would be more relevant to the conversation. And it has been different because in this one, Creetosis has generally managed to stay on topic. However, I'm already at the 3 Hour mark, he hasn't even finished with this point, I'm not hearing anything substantial, and I have wasted far too much time listening to an angry rant, so I'll be brief.

There's plenty of filler, lies, ad hominem and nitpicking here, but ultimately this discussion comes down to this: Creetosis likes skillpoints. He likes the fact that perks are reserved for special abilities, he doesn't mind the imbalances. He believes that they provide a level of roleplaying that you don't get without them. I could go one by one, but honestly, there's very little to argue here.

I don't like skills and I'm glad they are gone, they are an isometric RPG mechanic that doesn't fit in a 3d FPS. And I can tell you exactly why I don't like the system. But pay attention and you will notice one interesting thing in Creetosis' rant. He never once criticizes the new system. The entire time, he argues that Jon is wrong because the new perk system doesn't actually improves on anything that the old skillpoint system did, with the only difference being speech checks, but that's a separate issue (which he tries to present as the same issue, because of course he does). But if that was true, how is this even worth discussing? It would mean they changed the old system for a new one that basically works the same. Quite simply, some people like or need skills. It's an integral part of their RPG experience. And that's fine. I know some people aren't going to change their mind on that, I simply want them to listen to a different perspective.

Anyway, this was far more time than an internet hit piece deserves. Hopefully, someone will find it interesting at least.

1st off, lol what a fucking post. 2nd, I think you're too emotionally invested in the topic to properly take in the points the guy is making. Viewing everything he is saying in a negative light and being hyper vigilant for "gotcha" moments where he slips up. Nitpicking, in otherwords. Your post looks like you nitpicked a 4 fucking hour, long winded, meandering video. I think trying to do such a thing might drive me mad.

Honestly, I think both videos are 90% noise to signal. One side gushing as hard as they can about a dumbed down AAA rpg. The other drearily mumbling about said gusher and rpg-lite. I think both of these vidoes make for shoddy foundations to build a conversion upon.

Edit: Just want to clarify, the reason I think you're nitpicking the nitpicking response video is because you don't address the valid points the guy eventually brings up. Instead you opted to focus on rather inconsequential things that at most show he has a negative bias towards MaTN and FO4, but thats rather obvious, isn't it.

@tm812. I am arguing from logic. Everything I said is substantiated. If you don't agree, by all means, feel free to present a counterargument. But "lol" isn't one.

I watched the video from the beginning looking for a counterargument. All I found was an absurdly long hit piece that doesn't say anything meaningful. My post is just a summary of certain moments I found important. It's not possible to address every single thing the guys says, it's a 4 hour video, we would be here forever.

Now, as I said, I watched 3 hours. In those 3 hours, I didn't find a single valid point. The fact that someone says something negative or has an opinion about an issue doesn't mean they're raising a valid point. If you disagree, again, by all means, feel free to tell me what those valid points are, at least a few of them, and we can discuss them. But otherwise, you're not saying much here.

I don't believe you didn't find a single valid point because there are some just very basic things the guys points out that are true. And my lol was at the enormity of your post, not its contents. See, I think your just looking at the people you disagree with in too negative a light. At least in regards to long winded Fallout 4 youtube reviews.

Also, as I said before, I don't think these videos are a good basis for a discussion about Fallout 4's strengths and weaknesses. Look at my post before your massive post. I laid out what I think Fallout 4 is lacking in and the best thing about my post is that it didn't take 4 hours to read. I think these videos are fine discussion starters but are really lacking when it comes to carrying them.

Edit: At least make a list of your big takeaways from these videos to help forgetful people like me engage in the discussion. I watched 2 hours of that response video and I swear I'm drawing a blank on what most of it was about. Same goes for the original video as well, just to a lesser degree.

@tm812 Fair enough. I'll try to be concise:

- Leaving aside the ad homine and nitpicking, it's not necessarily that what he's saying isn't true, is that it's not even relevant to the conversation. For example, Jon's first argument is the genius of the junk economy. Creetosis begins his response by saying junk as set dressing isn't a problem and later starts talking about how FO4 lacks skillchecks. Neither of those is wrong per se, it's just a completely different conversation. There is no meaningful argument that explains why Jon is wrong about the junk economy.

- I'm not looking to be antagonistic, just have a conversation. Honestly, I did interpreted your "lol" as mocking. If that wasn't your intention, then no offense given and none taken.

- Ironically enough, you made a far better point in four sentences than that entire point did in 4 hours. Yeah, it's perfectly valid to say "I just don't care about those things".

- The issue is I wanted to avoid walls of text (yeah, I know), so I figured people would watch the video and then post a few thoughts. I wasn't expecting someone to post a 4 hour long hit piece. On that same issue, I'm willing to bet the reason why you can't remember anything Creetosis talked about in 2 hours is because, as I said, the guy simply can't make a point or stay on topic, so there's no structure or logical progression in his rant.