Chiming in a bit late here, but I'm not keen on watching an hour and a half video to hear someone else's opinion than the OP's. I read plenty fast enough that if he wrote down everything in that video, I could know what they think in a matter of minutes. I don't want to waste an hour and a half watching someone ramble on.

I don't think you really need an hour and a half to talk about the points you highlighted in the post either so my guess is that the guy rambles on quite a bit when it was not needed, but I can't say for sure because again, I'm not really interested in wasting an hour and a half watching it when I can just read the points and reply.

Of the topics you listed, I strongly disagree with all of them. This isn't some blind hatred for the game. I have a lot of hours logged into the game so I think I can safely say I know what I'm saying here. I always analyze the flaws in every game, no matter how much I liked it. For example, I ignored all talk about Breath of the Wild for years and then I finally got the game and played it, seeing everything for the first time. I still saw flaws in it despite loving the game. I can still see the glaring flaws in BOTW and FO4.

- The problems with pleasing the fanbase

This is one I can see where it would get difficult as pleasing all fans is never possible, but I feel they could have done a better job than this. Skyrim, for all its watering down of older mechanics and features of the series, still managed to at least appeal to older and newer players. FO4 tried far too hard to go more casual and streamlined. They watered it down too much to the point that if you didn't know it was a Fallout game, you probably wouldn't even know. It kind of feels more like Borderlands than Fallout to be honest. Simple combat, weapons that feel more special than they really are, and lacking of many key RPG aspects.

- The genius of the junk economy

Strongly disagree. The junk economy was bad. All the focus in trading just went on buying and selling junk. All looting just turned to picking up all the junk. I stopped exploring after a while because all I ever did was just pick up junk and lug it back to HQ. I'm all for putting some love to the junk, but junk is junk. Not all of it should be prized treasure. In 3, Fission Batteries were valuable for salvage so you'd keep an eye out for them and ignore lesser junk like a leaf blower or firehose nozzle. You actually sought out specific junk to make efficient salvage trips. Now in 4 you just take everything as it all has a use. NV was even guilty of this thanks to all the DLC like OWB where pretty much every single piece of junk had a use. It's not junk if it has a use, even if trivial.

Junk was used for crafting and building, but it was not very well balanced. A pencil was enough to build a wall for example. A lot of the crafting for weapons and armor was very stingey with the costs as those junk items were more rare, but getting them was more of a chore than anything else. I don't like chores unless they are fun. Looking all over creation for some glue is not fun.

And if you got the right perks, you didn't even need to scavenge for junk very often at all which would negate the whole argument of why it's good.

- Why FO4 is not only an RPG but an excellent one

Strongly disagree. I couldn't Role Play at all in it. Right in the beginning, we see that the SS was a happily married family man/woman who was a soldier/lawyer with a nice home in the suburbs. All the way through the tutorial, we see how much they loved their spouse and child and how angry they became when watching them die and have their son kidnapped....but once you get out, you have the option to start cracking jokes right off the bat. Hard to imagine myself as anyone other than a broken family man who just lost his wife and son. I tried starting a file where I was this grizzled merc who did anything for caps, but every option just railroaded me into the "good" option or it'd punish me for playing anything else. You're actively punished for trying to roleplay as anything other than a goody twoshoes vault dweller saint. If you weren't punished, then you were either cut out of a reward or absolutely nothing happened. For example, when you help Preston and his people, even if you chose to be an asshole when talking to him, absolutely nothing changes. He's still kind to you and they all move to Sanctuary with you.

I had an even harder time justifying my character "falling in love" with any of the followers because of his established backstory as a happily married man. You can lose your wife and then (to you) fall in love with some Irish junky 3 days later and then a robot turned synth 2 weeks later? Did your trauma make you a polygamist? It doesn't add up if I put myself in his shoes because I can't think of any reason to justify that a happily married man who just watched his wife die would so easily move on so quickly.

So I strongly disagree with that notion of having good role play aspects. Even if you want to ignore that role playing aspect and look at the mechanics, it's poorly done. Your skills(perks) are mostly just damage buffs to your weapons and nothing more. Only a few give you noteworthy abilities for combat. Fewer give any noticeable bonus to speak checks because of how bare bones dialogue is. Pretty much everything important in an RPG is either ignored or pushed aside in 4 in order to be more casual. Again, 4 feels more like Borderlands than a Fallout or RPG.

Then there's the horribly levelling system with enemies. They all level with you and once you level up high enough, all fights become tedious shootouts with bullet sponges. The worst part is that you actually do have a damage output cap. After getting all the perks and maxing out your gun, you can only dish out X amount of damage and not go any higher, but enemies keep getting stronger and get more health. To highlight this issue, let me refer to my second playthrough where I started using more mods and cheating to bypass the shit I disliked. I was tired of endless grinding for perk points so I gave myself a bunch of levels to get all perks. Got to around level 140 and had maxed out mod weapons and armor that did a lot of damage thanks to an "Efficient" Legendary Effect that doubled my weapons attack damage at the cost of 50% accuracy. I was wandering around the Glowing Sea and a group of scorpions spawned. Like 7 of them and they all leveled to my level. I unloaded hundreds of rounds into each one before they died and rarely missed a single shot. That's not good for an RPG or anything for that matter.

- Why the game did the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system better than ever before

Strongly disagree. The SPECIAL stats in earlier games helped define your character. You had to think about who you wanted your character to be and then plan perks around those stats. 4 just gets rid of all of that and makes them virtually pointless. They might as well not be called SPECIAL states in 4 because they act more like perks than stats. You have no reason not to max out your SPECIAL stats whereas in the older games you had to pick and choose carefully depending on how you wanted to play. Now they mean nothing.

- Why skill points are NOT a good way to represent character growth

I disagree. Skill points(when done right) are a great way to show skill growth. For all of Skyrim's faults, I think they handled skills the best. You only leveled up skills when you used them. You weren't going to max out your one-handed by making a bunch of potions. You had to fight in order to train it. 3/NV failed on that front, but at least when you put points to a skill, you'd see a noticeable change in your game. With 4, it's not very noticeable and they softlock you out of things until you can max them out, but the things it locks you out of are often not at all noteworthy or important at all. Didn't level up your speech? Oh well, you miss out on the extra 50 cap bonus reward for that merchant you just took a quest from. Not like you can just go kill a raider around the corner and sell his loot for 70 caps.

Speech checks for Charisma are the only real noticeable thing in 4 that a lack of skill creates unless you count the obnoxious crafting/building locks if you don't have the right perk, but that just doubles back to my grievances with the poor RPG aspects. Both the skill one and the roleplaying one. Why do I have to become a master of medicine to appoint a doctor at my settlement? They're the one who is going to be playing doctor, why do I need to learn it? From a RP perspective, it breaks immersion when I have to waste perk points to level up my medicine when I'm trying to be a gritty merc who would just pay a doctor to heal me rather than just fix up all my boo boos with a single stimpack that my now maxed out medicine will now heal.

- What makes The Commonwealth such an excellently designed setting

Disagree. I did not like exploring the Commonwealth. Roughly half the map is empty ocean with nothing in it. Then about 35% of the land of the map is cramped city streets that all look identical and all have a mutant/raider camp on every other street corner. I loathed going into the city. The surrounding areas were ok, but because the city parts took up so much, you ended up exploring the outskirts in a linear fashion and that hurt replay value because you just took the same routes over and over again.

I will note that the Glowing Sea was really cool though. It felt like an actual radioactive hellscape....but unfortunately there was rarely a reason to go there aside from one main quest and a few minor quests so it was wasted and too empty....and going back to the issue of junk being the only reason to really explore, why go to a massive area of emptiness to look for small bits of junk when you could just go buy some junk at a merchant or search literally any other building near your base? So the Glowing Sea was cool, but wasted potential. The ocean was also wasted potential as well. They did originally plan to have some ocean stuff, but they cut it late in development so now we're stuck with an empty ocean. Can't even build a cool raft city without mods and even then the pathing for settlers is so poor that it's not too viable.

- Proper enemy variety

Flat out disagree. Enemy variety was god awful. The vast majority of enemies you faced in any playthrough was raiders/mutants and mirelurks. Deathclaws, scorprions, bears, stingwings, behemoths, radstag, etc were all far too rare to be considered common enough to warrant "variety". The only ones as common as the raiders, mutants, and mirelurks were mole rats or radroaches, but those are so boring and annoying to fight.

The problem is the layout of the map. Raiders spawn in the cities more frequently....but then most of the content is in the cities so you end up fighting them so much more. Same goes for mutants. Most quests and crap is in the urban areas so that's where most of your playtime will be spent which means that you go to the areas where the other types spawn far less.

Then with half the map being ocean and so many damn bogs and puddles, mirelurks are far too common. They're everywhere. They feel more common than the damn raiders sometimes and I get sick of seeing them to the point I actively just run past their nests(which again are everywhere).

I hardly ran into the other enemy variants enough to appreciate any form of diversity in the enemy roster.

Then there's the sub variants to enemies that are just tacked on. Let's say I really need a deathclaw hand. So I go out hunting. On one hill I spot a regular deathclaw. On another hill I spot a chameleon deathclaw. Which one should I go kill for the hand? There's no reward difference. I get a hand from both and the regular one is less annoying to fight. I have no real reason to go after that chameleon one. It's not like that variety even means much. Oh no, that deathclaw can turn invisible for a few seconds. It's not like I can't see the giant shimmering figure right in front of me as it kicks up dirt moving around. Most of the mirelurks feel samey too. This part of the "variety" is tacked on and feels cheap.

At least Skyrim tried a bit to change this. Wolves and Ice Wolves dropped different furs which were valued differently so you had a little bit of a reason to go after the bigger one. Same for bears. The Deer also gave you small antlers for females and large for males which was important for potion making. 4 does not do this aside from adding some "nuclear material" to some glowing creatures, but that is a pretty pointless loot item to reward someone with for such a bigger kill.

- Why the factions are excellently designed.

Mostly disagree. Unlike others, I can appreciate some of 4's writing. I don't think 4's writing is as bad as many others say, but I don't think that the factions are great. The MM are just glorified neighborhood watchers and the cardboard cutout "good" guys. The BoS tried to mix 3's BoS who were more good natured and helpful with the other BoS branches who were assholes. They're deeply flawed. This can be good for a game where each faction is deeply flawed in their own ways, but 4 has a habit of making the factions horribly flawed and some not being flawed. For example, the MM don't really have many flaws other than numbers and resources, but even that does nothing to slow them down. The BoS on the other hand have many moral flaws that could easily make you hate them. The MM don't have flaws like that. They're supposed to be the good guys so they don't have many noteworthy negative traits.

Then there's the Institute. I feel they're pretty well crafted for the most part, but I also feel that some of it is just tacked on without any real reason. Like the whole Synth distrust thing started because someone in the Institute decided to break up the Commonwealth Counsel that the Institute had started themselves and we're never given a single reason as to why this happened or even who gave the order. You can say that a flaw would be lack of communication, but that's really the only example of this we have and it just feels so out of place and it feels tacked on. The other flaws the Institute has is a huge moral dilemma, but their strengths are also noteworthy too so it makes them pretty balanced.

Then there's the Railroad. As useful as a wet paper bag. A wet paper bag that the genius who handed it to you in the rain simply put it into another wet paper bag because he thought it'd make a difference. Seriously, I can't find a single good argument for why these people are even viable or smart(choices). They feel like a last minute addition to the faction list because just 3 factions wasn't enough. Their ideology makes no sense. They care for machines over people, yet are made up of people. They actually dismiss the needs of real people in order to help machines and synths who are an extreme minority. Then they actually will destroy the Institute(and by destroy, I mean make you do all the work because they were never capable of doing it themselves), thus destroying the only means of production for the very synths they were formed to protect, effectively removing their entire "need" to exist as a faction. They operate more like a political movement than a faction. They are a joke faction. Never seen any strong arguments to be made in favor of them.

So I disagree with the "excellent" factions.

These are all the points you highlighted yourself. You said "etc" which implies more, but you didn't really list them so I can't really reply to them. If you list others I'd happily respond to them though.

Only other points I can imagine you'd highlight would be weapon variety, gunplay, Power Armor, and settlement building. I'll pre-emptively respond to them just in case.

Weapon variety is a joke. At first glance it looks extensive because of how the crafting works, but upon further inspection it's hollow and small. The modifications are a cheap way of making it look like there are more weapons than there really are. For example, look at the laser weapons. Both the laser pistols and laser rifles are exactly the same weapons, but with or without a stock. They use the same ammo type even. So there's really only the Laser gun, the Institute Laser Gun, Plasma Gun, and Gatling Laser. That sums up all ranged energy weapons and 2/4 use the same exact ammo types.

To further highlight how poor the variety of weapons is, let's look at all the pistols you can get.

There's the 10mm pistol, the pipe pistol, the pipe revolver, and the 44 revolver(with the DLC version being a cheap tacked on one that I honestly wouldn't even count). There's the Deliverer, but it's a unique one and locked to a quest so I wouldn't count it as an actual variant as it's one of a kind. So that's 4 handguns and the pipe weapons are just being separated to fluff this list out a bit.

Compare this to NV's handguns.
.357, 9mm, 10mm, silenced .22, .45, 5.56, 12.7, 44 magnum, and the hunting revolver. That's 10 different handguns and I didn't even count the non-unique variants to those guns that arguably warrant inclusion to the list. Each one of these guns has strengths and weaknesses that you have to weigh when deciding what to use.

4's different handguns don't really have this strength and weakness kind of deal. The pipe weapons are pure garbage and used only until a better option becomes available(which is pretty much right away with the 10mm). Then the 44 revolver is honestly just shit because of the horrible recoil and the horrible rate of fire. So you don't really have any reason to choose any other handgun other than the 10mm.

Gunplay. Transitioning smoothly from gun variety to gunplay, they both intertwine. I touched up a bit on how the guns feel very samey already so I don't really need to elaborate much more on that. Instead I can point out other flaws in the gunplay. For starters, it's buggy as hell. I lost track of how many times I died because the game glitched out when I was trying to switch weapons. I'd often be in a firefight and need to whip out my shotgun to kill some enemy that got too close while I was behind cover, but when I switched with the favorites bar, the gun would vanish and leave me defenseless for a few seconds before it finally registered that I wanted to swap weapons. This is only for a few seconds, but those few seconds can easily get you killed and you have no way of stopping it. This same glitch also kicks in if you pick up a 10mm pistol, a minigun, or whatever weapon you currently have equipped. My guess on the 10mm and minigun are because they're scripted in the tutorial to automatically equip when picked up and some leftover script tries to fiddle with them when you pick them up while you have another gun out. The other one I think happens because I guess the game is trying to pick up a gun you have equipped and can't comprehend the wonky "variety" of the guns and temporarily removes the one in your hands. This presents huge problems in combat.

Another thing I briefly touched up on is the lack of ammo variety. So many of the few variants of guns use the same ammo so there's no real reason to carry more than one weapon at any time. In 3/NV, I liked having a small arsenal with me. A pistol, a sniper, an assault rifle, and a shotgun for 3 and a pistol, a 44, a shotgun, a semi auto 5.56, an AMR, and a sniper. I liked having multiple weapons using different ammo types in case I started to run low on one type. It was part of the gameplay. You had to think about what you used. Getting an AMR early in NV was cool, but .50 rounds weren't very common drops, were expensive to buy, and merchants didn't sell them in bulks at early levels so carrying it around at level 5 wasn't a smart move as it became dead weight. That's not a thing in 4.

In 4, I end up carrying maybe 1 or 2 guns if I wasn't attempting to RP at all. A rifle for range and maybe a shotgun for close range if I don't feel like using my rifle that has no real disadvantage in close range. I know some people who pretty much exclusively use the Gatling Laser because of how powerful it is compared to other guns. You really don't need many guns in 4 because ammo is so damn plentiful and so much of it is shared. Ammo of all kinds is thrown at you all the time that you rarely ever need to even buy ammo and never run out. Why do I need to bring a pistol when I'll never run out of 5.56 rounds?

Another note on gunplay is the broken stealth. Unlike Skyrim's broken stealth where you were OP with stealth, 4's stealth is broken in the sense that it doesn't work. No matter what I tried, I could never successfully stealth. I tried going into a building full of raiders alone, full light shadowed leather armor, maxed stealth, muffled legs, silenced weapons, and even a knife. Not a single time was I ever able to stealthily take out more than one person. I'd shoot a sleeping raider and alert the whole building. Then I'd try stabbing them with my stealth blade combat knife. Still alerted the whole building. Then I'd try simply sneaking by that sleeping raider. Still they all heard me. Stealth flat out does not work in 4. It's so broken that you can place a mine down on one end of a building then go to the other side unseen and then when a raider steps on it, they all start making their way to where you are hiding. They don't check in other directions. They automatically hone in on you. Stealth is completely broken and doesn't work for more than a few seconds.

Power Armor. I'll give credit to 4 in that they handled Power Armor pretty well. It actually feels like power armor rather than just some suit you slip on. However, they also dropped the ball with it too. When they announced the new PA, they said that the Power Cores were rare and that you'd need to use them sparingly with the PA. Obviously they changed it since then, but that was still on a lot of peoples' minds. People started to hoard PCs and never use them because we were told that they were rare when in reality you can pretty much stay in PA 24/7 once you get around to knowing which merchants get the stuff(and I'm pretty sure the DLC even lets you craft them). Then there's also the whole raider PA where suddenly everyone and their mother knows how to operate and maintain it. Also the customization on the PA feels a bit limited. Still a strong point to note, but it's not without flaws.

Settlement building. Honestly, it's the only reason I bother playing the game anymore. If 4 didn't have this feature, I'd never touch the game again. It was a really good addition to the series in my opinion and I really hope they bring it over to ES, but it's still with many flaws. 4's settlement system is incredibly shallow and flawed. Without mods, it's almost not even worth bothering with. You have no real need to build a proper settlement. Having merchants is nice, but it's not a necessity. You really only need 2-3. One for a gun/junk merchant, and 1-2 for farming. There's not much reason to get more unless you really want other merchant types, but they largely become redundant. Why get a doctor merchant when you can just use the medicine perks you had to level up to unlock them to simply heal yourself? Why get a clothing merchant when I walk around in PA 24/7? Why get a gun merchant when all I use is a single gun? Why a food merchant when food is literally everywhere and rather pointless?

The only real positive to the settlement building is building your own ideal wasteland settlement for RP....but as stated above, with the RP so limited, there's not much really going for that. Still I enjoy building shit and will reinstall the game JUST to build a themed town. Like one time I scrapped all the buildings and roads in Sanctuary. Then I built a large church with a few smaller buildings, a greenhouse, a gazebo, and a cemetery. Then I dressed all the guards and vendors in priest robes. I basically made Sanctuary a monastery. I have fun making things like that, but I need mods for that. It's not possible to have that kind of creative freedom in the base game.

So if you have any other points you'd like to make in favor of the game being better, list them and I'd be happy to address them. To reiterate, this isn't blind bashing or fanboying over NV. I like NV, but also acknowledge how flawed it is too. I'm capable of liking a game and still seeing glaring flaws in them. 4 I honestly felt was a 4.5/10 for the base game. It becomes a 6/10 with mods. And it becomes a 3/10 if you have no mods and take out the settlement building. I stand firm in my opinions on the game and I don't believe it's better than I think it is. I've poured hundreds of hours into it and saw so many flaws and things I didn't like. When I first played, I told myself I was going to do a no-mod run first and then mod it for round 2, but then I quickly changed that to a "mostly mod free aside from issues I find NEED fixing".

@Wertologist So, here's the main problem with what you said. You write a very long post, which would take me a while to read and reply to, and finish by saying essentially "I know I'm right and I'm not willing to change my mind". OK then... Why would I try? Why exactly did you bother writing a reply at all? Just to tell us you are right? Man, if you're going to take part in a conversation, you have to at least be willing to listen to a different argument - which you didn't btw, you simply ignored the video. If you're so sure you're right, then fine, just ignore the post and move on. I guess I will reply in case someone else wants to read it, but this convo is very much dead from the start.

Now, one of the reasons I posted the video was because I wanted to avoid massive posts. It's long, but well made and structured, so I was hoping people would watch at least a bit and then comment on one or two arguments. But it seems that's not going to happen, so I'll just try to be brief:

- The problems with pleasing the fanbase.

This one was more of an introduction but let's start here. What proof is there that Skyrim managed to appeal to both new and old players? Because I've seen what people who really liked Morrowind have to say and they don't like Skyrim. If we go for sales, Morrowind sold around 5 million copies, Oblivion sold around 10 million and Skyrim has sold more than 30 million. Meaning most of Skyrim's fanbase is new. Now, if Skyrim, which is the most "watered down" game has done so well, what lesson should the developers take from that? Because for all the praise NV gets, NV isn't even as popular as FO3. And FO4 is vastly more popular than both.  

- The genius of the junk economy.

The first problem here is that you're arguing with yourself, specifically, with what you imagine the argument to be rather than the actual argument that was made because you didn't bother to actually listen to the argument.

One of the most important, most iconic parts of the franchise has always been the Prospectors. The world was nuked into rubble and all the fantastical Sci-Fi technology was lost, so people dedicate their lives to scavenge through the ruins on the hopes of finding some pre war treasure because even the most mundane of things is of value.

FO4 portrays this better than any previous game, because previously, junk was useless. There was never a reason to pick up anything other than the occasional weapon, ammo and chems. You would pass by entire scores of pre war tech because they had no use to you as a player. Think about how much that contradicts the very core of the world you're exploring. All the sudden, you can now actually play as a prospector, you can see how the world and the economy works. And the game even trains you to think as a prospector because unlike FO3 and NV, where loot was mostly randomly placed, in FO4, loot matches the setting. Are you looking for more pragmatic items like steel or concrete? find industrial facilities or construction sites. Do you need gold or silver? look for residential areas to find some jewelry. Rare materials and chemicals? go to medical facilities.  

Now, Saying that you need to "look all over creation for some glue" is absolutely dishonest. You can find the parts just by exploring. You can buy them. Or you can start towns to produce your own. It is entirely up to you.

- Why FO4 is not only an RPG but an excellent one.

Again, you're arguing with yourself here because the argument was mostly about Perks and character customization. But I will address what you talked about instead.

Here's what we know about the SS: The man was a soldier and if you don't choose him his name is Nate. The woman was a lawyer and if you don't choose her, her name is Nora. They have a son named Shaun. You get to briefly see the place they lived before the war. That's it. Profession, spouse, child, place of residence.

Let's say you pick the guy. What kind of person is he? Why did he join the army? Did that experience changed him in any way, what did he learn? Why did he marry Nora? And most importantly, now that his life has been destroyed, how is he going to deal with the world? Is the experience going to break him? Does he have any interest left in this place he used to call home?

In FO2, we play as a tribal. We know our ancestors, we get to see our family, we have a clear motivation and a goal. The story pushes us to be the good guy. In FO3 we spend the first minutes of the game experiencing life in the vault with our family and friends. FNV is more neutral but we play as a courier with an extremely detailed backstory. The only meaningful difference we get in FO4 is that the protagonist now has a voice. I'm sorry, I'm not having this idea that you can't roleplay, especially based on such flimsy arguments such as "you can make jokes" or "You can fall in love with an irish junky" as if those weren't completely optional things.

fallout 4 allows for deeper customization that we've ever had. It allows you to literally build your own world, your own commonwealth. You can be a prospector, or a mercenary or a mayor. Saying that there's no room for roleplay is absolutely not true.

- Why the game did the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system better than ever before.

I'm sorry, "You had to think about who you wanted your character to be and then plan perks around those stats"? In FO3 and NV, your character can be a world class prodigy (10) on one thing and perfectly competent (5) on everything else. You can raise two stats up to 10 and still have a perfectly respectable score of 4 on everything else. Your SPECIALs are completely dissociated from your skills so you can have a masterful speaker with Charisma 1.

In Fallout 4, you have a lot less points, so you need to balance your character better, and your SPECIALs are the basis of your character, so you actually need to invest in what you want your character to be good at.

- Why skill points are NOT a good way to represent character growth.

Skills were designed for a completely different type of game. A game like FO2, an isometric RPG. In that kind of game you and your character are completely separate. You don't interact with the world, your character does, and you observe from afar. Your ability as a player to influence your character's actions is very limited, and in that context, skills are meaningful representations of your character's proficiency.

In NV however, skills are just gamey mechanics that get in my way. I'm a good shot, I know how to play the game, but if my character's skill in guns is low, the bullets I fire will artificially curve, making me miss.

One thing that pretty much everyone can agree is that the combat in FO4 was a significant improvement. I have never seen a single person who actually likes the combat in FO3/NV, in fact most people mod it to - to varying degrees - reduce the importance of skills in the game. Yet, so little thought is put into why that is.

Once you move into a 3d setting, the purpose of skills, which was to determine your character's chance to successfully do something, is completely gone. So they either end up being this awkward mechanic that damages gameplay or you simply turn them into ye another damage boost, which is precisely what Skyrim does. And even then. The one real purpose skills have in Skyrim is to unlock perks, the damage boost isn't that significant, so, why not simply drop skills all together and just give you perks?

Further, precisely one the reasons why they don't work is because you don't see a noticeable change in your game. Not until you reach a threshold. A lockpicking skill of 25 and a lockpicking skill of 39 are, for all purposes, exactly the same. You can invest all your points in a skill and get absolutely nothing.

- What makes The Commonwealth such an excellently designed setting.

Man, saying "I don't like it" is not an argument. It's perfectly valid to say you don't like it, but not to use it as an argument to say something is bad.

FO4 is the very first time Bethesda gives us an actual urban environment to explore, something that isn't very common in games. FO3 uses tunnels to make it seem the DC area is huge but the actual ruins are extremely small. NV goes in the opposite direction giving you an open area, but it's mostly destroyed, not particularly interesting. The Strip itself is very limited. TES gives us "cities" that have 10 or so houses. Boston is the very first time you can actually explore an absolutely massive, open city. with hundreds of different paths everywhere. Every streets has something to offer, even if it is a small building with a room or two. It has its own small mini biomes, like the ghoul infested area around the crater or the huge skyscrapers of the financial district.

It is also the very first game that properly exploits the 3rd dimension, and just how interesting areas can be when designed thinking vertically.

It uses a dynamic weather system, where rain, fog or storms are not just for show, they actually have a gameplay purpose, especially when you play survival.

- Proper enemy variety.

"The vast majority of enemies you faced in any playthrough was raiders/mutants and mirelurks"? OK. As opposed to what? Show me one fallout game where the majority of enemies aren't raiders, because let me tell you, if you actually start keeping count, you're going to be surprised. Back when I decided to play FO2, I didn't realize this until I looked at the kill count and found something like 250 men (not even raiders, just men) and around 100 rats, everything else was around 10 or 20.    

Further this wasn't about the quantity but quality. In FO3 and FNV the only difference between a molerat, a ghoul and a deathclaw is their health, damage and armor. If you haven't noticed, they behave in the exact same way and have the exact same weak spot, the head. In FO4 these are completely different enemies.

- Why the factions are excellently designed.

The argument isn't that factions are excellent, is that they're excellently designed. From a lore and story telling perspective, there's no denying that Caesar's Legion, the NCR or Mr. House are far more interesting than the MM or the Railroad. From a gameplay perspective however, FO4's factions are much better.

So, suppose you have never heard of the BoS, you are playing Fallout for the first time, and you do their first mission "Show no mercy". If that was all you had, what could you tell about the faction? Well, they're a paramilitary organization, they have access to advanced technology and powerful weaponry, and they are uncompromising. There's no room for stealth or peaceful solutions in that quest.

How about the Railroad? They're a secret organization, a group of specialists, they rely on their skills. And what kind of missions would you expect from them? Well, stealth focused missions. And lo and behold, that's exactly what you get. You can infiltrate and bring down the BoS' airship without firing a single shot.

This is a perfect example of narrative harmony. The characters actions are in complete synchronicity with who they are, which is something we rarely see.

- Weapon variety.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true. Yes, on the most superficial level, you have only the laser gun rather than a laser pistol and a laser rifle. But the laser gun isn't one weapon, it's dozens of weapons. It can be a solid semi-auto pistol, a machine-pistol, a rifle, an assault rifle, a sniper rifle, or anything in between. It can be made into a highly specialized weapon or a solid all rounder. You can optimize it for power, customize it to excel at whatever range you prefer to fight, or even give it an incendiary effect.

NV's weapon variety goes in the opposite direction. The only difference between the 357 revolver and the 44 is that the 44 does more damage. A 10mm is just a more powerful 9mm. The sniper rifle is superior in every way to the hunting rifle. Other than the occasional marginal drawback like not being able to sneak them past security (which is absolutely irrelevant anyway since it's only used twice) or a slightly less abundant ammo, the only meaningful difference between most weapons of the same category is damage. Once you can use the better versions, the old ones go into the trash.

- Gunplay.

Is that really an argument you want to make? Because the gunplay isn't perfect. But are you truly going to argue that it isn't a huge improvement from what we got in FO3 and NV?

- Power Armor.

This is nitpicking. Every game has flaws. Ammo is abundant in every fallout game. And I don't care if players want to use PA all the time. This is a non issue.

- Settlement Building.

The whole point of an RPG is that you shouldn't be forced to do anything. You can rebuild the entire commonwealth, make a few bases or simply not touch the feature at all if you don't like it. It's called roleplay. And saying "well you need mods for that", when NV is unplayable without mods is just ridiculous.

@gavin gold
> finish by saying essentially "I know I'm right and I'm not willing to change my mind". OK then... Why would I try? Why exactly did you bother writing a reply at all? Just to tell us you are right? Man, if you're going to take part in a conversation, you have to at least be willing to listen to a different argument

The same can be said about your initial post. You made declarative statements about your opinions. I did the same, only I disagreed. I'm more than happy to listen to another voice. I just don't want to waste an hour and a half watching a video of somebody else's argument when I talking to you about your own opinion and arguments. If I sent you 3 different videos each 1+ hour long about why FO4 was bad, are you going to watch them all? I doubt it and I certainly wouldn't expect you to. I'm not throwing someone else's argument at you. I'm putting my own opinions up here and you're more than welcome to reply to them. If I didn't want to discuss it, then I wouldn't have replied now.

I very much doubt anyone who posted here would be able to change your mind, so why bother post it here? You just accused me of not listening to others, but then snapped at me when I did. You clearly seem adamant in your views and opinions. Would anyone ever post anything here that COULD change your mind? I doubt it, so by your own logic, you shouldn't even have posted.

>Now, one of the reasons I posted the video was because I wanted to avoid massive posts. It's long, but well made and structured, so I was hoping people would watch at least a bit and then comment on one or two arguments. But it seems that's not going to happen, so I'll just try to be brief:

You're on a discussion forum. I think reading is to be expected so I don't think a few paragraphs are going to upset people. I managed to tackle every point you highlighted and then added more to it and you still read it and I'd wager others did too. I imagine it took you a few minutes to read what I said and understand it. A few minutes vs an hour and a half. I'll take the few minutes and I'd wager a lot of others would too. I skimmed above for what others said and some complained about the length of the video as well. For future, it's not bad to have typed up discussions. If you are as open to a different opinion as you claim to be, then why would you not type one up? If you post a video of that length, expect people to address it in length too. Seems a bit backwards to say that you are open to other opinions and post something lengthy that will produce lengthy replies while saying you want to avoid them.

>What proof is there that Skyrim managed to appeal to both new and old players?

Sales are a good measure. While it was more mainstream, to hint or imply a majority of players weren't older fans would be something hard to prove. How do you know that it didn't appeal to both? The game sold overwhelmingly well and has been ported almost as much as RE4 has. Skyrim having so many new mods coming out daily is also a good indication while the older games have a more dead mod list. I don't care enough on this particular point to dig around for proof so take that as you will, but on the flip side, you can't say that it didn't appeal to both kinds and you can't really say that 4 wouldn't be able to appease the fans. If you want to assert that, where's the proof to that whole point?

>The first problem here is that you're arguing with yourself, specifically, with what you imagine the argument to be rather than the actual argument that was made because you didn't bother to actually listen to the argument.

Again, you didn't give me much to work with. You didn't give me your argument. You gave me someone else's and wanted me to watch an hour and a half video. If you really want to open that can of worms of simply posting YT videos for arguments, then enjoy watching these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDqfnWVW7nE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XogAdi3j38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A34poZ6paGs

Enjoy the 4+ hours

>FO4 portrays this better than any previous game, because previously, junk was useless. There was never a reason to pick up anything other than the occasional weapon, ammo and chems

Not true. If you read what I said, I already addressed this. When I first played 3, I made most of my caps selling junk. I selected junk by a weight v cap basis. It helped make extra money on my travels to break even when buying supplies. I tended to walk away from every merchant either gaining money after buying what I need or only losing a few caps. I always had a surplus of caps because of this system I had. Some junk was worth picking up while some wasn't worth it. A few extra caps adds up in the long run. It was never useless in 3 or NV. Part of what made it good in those games was because not all junk was useful or worth collecting. When everything is valuable, why leave any? Why sort through when you can just spam the pickup button? In 3/NV, you had to pick and choose. You tended to leave bent tin cans, hammers, leaf blowers, etc behind because they weren't valuable. You cite prospectors in a case of lore, but this was also the case with my point. If every piece of junk was worth carrying, prospectors would have picked everything clean. Instead, they picked through the junk for the more valuable pieces and left the rest. In 4, you pretty much take everything as it all has value.

>Now, Saying that you need to "look all over creation for some glue" is absolutely dishonest. You can find the parts just by exploring. You can buy them. Or you can start towns to produce your own. It is entirely up to you.

It's not dishonest at all. You literally just said that the solution was looking all over. What do you think "looking all over creation" means? To go around looking in buildings and/or checking merchants. That's part of "looking all over" means. That's not dishonest. That's what you do and what you just said you do.

>Again, you're arguing with yourself here because the argument was mostly about Perks and character customization. But I will address what you talked about instead.

And again, you didn't give me much to work with. I addressed both the RP aspect and the perks, which you're now telling me are what you were arguing. So how is that arguing with myself when you literally just told me that's what you were arguing? I specifically chose to cover everything in the scope of each point you listed because that's part of those points. You can't say it's a good RPG and not include RP(literally in the name) and mechanics. Both are important so I addressed both. Can't really pick and choose what is and isn't counted.

>Let's say you pick the guy. What kind of person is he? Why did he join the army? Did that experience changed him in any way, what did he learn? Why did he marry Nora? And most importantly, now that his life has been destroyed, how is he going to deal with the world? Is the experience going to break him? Does he have any interest left in this place he used to call home?

The motive argument doesn't stand up much too well when we see the results of them. They're a happily married couple and we see absolutely no signs of negativity there. To say that maybe they're crappy people deep down is a huge stretch. There really was not a lot of wiggle room. You're still a married man/woman. You can't argue motivations to excuse that. 4 had the most locked down backstory of any other FO protagonist. That can't be overlooked or dismissed

>In FO2, we play as a tribal.

And 2's protag was far more loose. Nothing was set in stone other than lineage and origin. You may have been happy there. You may have hated it. You may have been indifferent. There was nothing to really indicate one way or another.

In contrast, seeing a happily married couple with a baby and no troubles in the world doesn't give you any indication that they may be unhappy. They're as we see them. If you see a happy man and find out he's got a wife, kids, a family dog and a nice job, you're reasonably going to assume a lot about him from that information. With some guy you saw across the street who you only know that he was the son of the previous homeowner, you don't know anything about them. That's why it's so different.

>I'm sorry, I'm not having this idea that you can't roleplay, especially based on such flimsy arguments such as "you can make jokes" or "You can fall in love with an irish junky" as if those weren't completely optional things.

How many opportunities does the player get to act like an asshole merc? Can't remember a single time. Every dialogue option had him responding in a chipper tone and usually a smile. On top of that, the options you had in terms of RP were almost always railroading you to be the good guy. You only had 4 options in chat and it was yes, sarcastic yes, maybe(but really yes), and no. You didn't have freedom to really flesh your character out in terms of role playing. No matter how much I played, it always ended up with Nate coming off as a nice guy because of the weak dialogue options and the railroading choices

>fallout 4 allows for deeper customization that we've ever had. It allows you to literally build your own world, your own commonwealth. You can be a prospector, or a mercenary or a mayor. Saying that there's no room for roleplay is absolutely not true.

Hardly. Know what all those roles had in common? Your origin. No matter how you want to try to pretend to be, you're still that happily married man who had a nice house in the suburbs, a wife, and son. Mayor of 20 people? Ok, but you're still that same guy as the version of you who wanders around as a nomad. The origin that they showed far too much of for you is what drags it down and limits it.

3 and NV were guilty of this too to a degree, but the options you took in 3's opening were varied and would help you dictate how you were going to be. In 3, when you bump into Amata who's being harassed by Butch, you have options like talking them down, beating the shit out of them, and even letting them continue. Each of these options can help you define who you would be. Your character in 3 was a blank slate that you could impose your own growth on. In 4, we get all nice and friendly characters thrown into the intro. That's established background. You're slated to be a friendly guy from both the intro and the many many nice options in the later quests that railroad you to be. You aren't a blank slate in 4. You have a past that you had no influence over.

>I'm sorry, "You had to think about who you wanted your character to be and then plan perks around those stats"? In FO3 and NV, your character can be a world class prodigy (10) on one thing and perfectly competent (5) on everything else.

Yeah, and you had to think it through because your SPECIAL stats affected not only your health and shit, but also what perks you could get. With a low INT, you're not getting the Nerd Rage perk. Not enough STR means no Heavy Weight perk. Low INT also meant that you got less skill points to use. Your SPECIAL choices mattered. You could eventually raise them all higher, but it was a late-game reward and still limited because you had a perk limit due to the level cap. In 4, the SPECIALs just seem like tacked on stat boosts and prerequisite locks for perks. With a maxed out STR, I never really felt strong. With a maxed out INT, I never really felt smart. They felt like keys to the perk door more than anything else, especially when you can just keep playing to max them all out. Then they feel even more empty.

>Man, saying "I don't like it" is not an argument. It's perfectly valid to say you don't like it, but not to use it as an argument to say something is bad.

For one thing, when arguing opinions, that is most certainly an argument. Secondly, I went into why I didn't like it so that's disingenuous. You keep trying to sum up everything I say as some empty statement, which is rather hypocritical since you opened this up with trying to accuse me of not hearing opposing opinions. You're essentially dismissing everything I say as "not good enough". So why do you post here if you don't want to hear opposing views?

>Skills were designed for a completely different type of game. A game like FO2, an isometric RPG. In that kind of game you and your character are completely separate. You don't interact with the world, your character does, and you observe from afar. Your ability as a player to influence your character's actions is very limited, and in that context, skills are meaningful representations of your character's proficiency.

Strongly disagree. A high gun skill in NV let you pass slill checks in dialogue that would open other options or give flavor to the conversation. Your skills affected your options and your abilities. While 3 and NV may not have done it perfectly, they did it better than 4 where you barely notice any changes other than damage output/resistance.

>In NV however, skills are just gamey mechanics that get in my way. I'm a good shot, I know how to play the game, but if my character's skill in guns is low, the bullets I fire will artificially curve, making me miss

Because that's how skills work.... If you want to do better, you put points to make them better. You're arguing against one of the core aspects of an RPG....right after you just tried arguing that 4 was a good example of RPG mechanics. You're contradicting yourself

>Once you move into a 3d setting, the purpose of skills, which was to determine your character's chance to successfully do something, is completely gone. So they either end up being this awkward mechanic that damages gameplay or you simply turn them into ye another damage boost, which is precisely what Skyrim does. And even then. The one real purpose skills have in Skyrim is to unlock perks, the damage boost isn't that significant, so, why not simply drop skills all together and just give you perks?

Why not drop perks altogether then? Why not just make it a hack and slash? Your argument here is that skills feel tacked on for you, but they actually did something in 3/NV. In 4, they're just stat boosts for the most part. To say that 3/NV's skills are gamey, you're saying 4 is too. If you want to get rid of skills, why not get rid of perks and have everyone end up being the same?

>Further, precisely one the reasons why they don't work is because you don't see a noticeable change in your game. Not until you reach a threshold. A lockpicking skill of 25 and a lockpicking skill of 39 are, for all purposes, exactly the same. You can invest all your points in a skill and get absolutely nothing

As opposed to 4 where it just takes an arbitrary lock off a crafting option? Again, if you're going to argue that skills are pointless because you can just skip it to go right for perks, why not skip perks and have everything available at the start? You don't see a noticeable change in 4. While 3/NV had a rough implementation, it still worked. In 4, it's just meticulous unlocking of restrictions. "lol can't craft that scope without the right perk". In 3/NV, as rough as the checkpoint skill levels were, you still noticed a change when you hit those checkpoints. Sure, it could have been done a bit better, but it was still doing it's job for the most part. When you hit 50 in guns, you found your gun sway shrink and your damage went up as well as skill checks being available. In 4, all I notice with a perk increase is being able to craft a new upgrade or buy a merchant stand that someone else will operate.

>FO4 is the very first time Bethesda gives us an actual urban environment to explore

Ok, it doesn't make it enjoyable or good though.

>TES gives us "cities" that have 10 or so houses.

And 4 gave us 2 cities with 10 people and a few "settlements" with 1-2 people sitting next to dying crops

Boston is the very first time you can actually explore an absolutely massive, open city. with hundreds of different paths everywhere. Every streets has something to offer, even if it is a small building with a room or two. It has its own small mini biomes, like the ghoul infested area around the crater or the huge skyscrapers of the financial district.

Yeah, who could forget bandit camp #27 or Super Mutant camp #19 just around the corner! While 4 did a better job fleshing out individual areas, the city as a whole was not fun to explore. Exploring one street means you explored them all. They were all very samey. All compact and filled with camps of raiders or mutants. Very few locations really stood out there and I couldn't be assed to bother exploring more of it because it became repetitive and I got tired of fighting raiders and/or mutants on every other street corner.

>OK. As opposed to what? Show me one fallout game where the majority of enemies aren't raiders, because let me tell you, if you actually start keeping count, you're going to be surprised.

You're either missing the point or are misrepresenting my point. My issue isn't that raiders are the most common enemy. My issue is that every other enemy type is vastly overshadowed with how many raiders you face.

To highlight this issue, look at 3. Let's say you wanted to go from A to B. You head out and come across a group of wandering raiders. That's fine. It's expected and fine. Then you run into a creature of some kind and then more creatures a little later on. Then wandering raiders again or maybe a raider camp. The thing with 3 was that they were varied and evenly represented. While raiders were the more common type, they didn't completely overshadow the other enemies. I saw each enemy type in 3 a reasonable amount of times no matter what direction I was headed. In 4, you mostly face raiders and mutants with everything else being exceptionally more rare to bump into. It seemed like 3/5 encounters were raiders, 1/5 being mutants, and 1/5 being other things. Raiders were oversaturating the encounters in 4

>Further this wasn't about the quantity but quality. In FO3 and FNV the only difference between a molerat, a ghoul and a deathclaw is their health, damage and armor. If you haven't noticed, they behave in the exact same way and have the exact same weak spot, the head. In FO4 these are completely different enemies.

Hardly. 4 tried tacking on some things to some creatures, but they either were extremely annoying or minscule. I started just running past all mole rats after getting tired of them warping around reality by digging. Scorpions would unsheathe their katanas after teleporting behind you every single encounter. It was worse than the Balverines in the first Fable game. They all still have the head weak spot in 4 so that is an empty boast.

>The argument isn't that factions are excellent, is that they're excellently designed.

I know that was your argument. That's why I argued that they weren't. I argued that they were poorly designed in terms of balance and concept.

>This is a perfect example of narrative harmony. The characters actions are in complete synchronicity with who they are, which is something we rarely see.

You're contradicting yourself again. First you say that your argument isn't that they're excellent, but excellently designed, but then make the argument that they're excellent while skimping out on the design parts. Your whole argument here is on the "excellent" part.

>I'm sorry but this is simply not true. Yes, on the most superficial level, you have only the laser gun rather than a laser pistol and a laser rifle. But the laser gun isn't one weapon, it's dozens of weapons. It can be a solid semi-auto pistol, a machine-pistol, a rifle, an assault rifle, a sniper rifle, or anything in between.

Mundane changes tacked on to hide lack of real variety. A raider with a pipe pistol is still a raider with a pipe pistol. Doesn't matter what you put on that gun, it's still a pipe pistol. Lasers offer a bit more freedom, but it's still tacked on. It's all the same gun even if it shoots a little different. In older FO games, there was actual variety. Your laser pistol felt different than your automatic laser rifle.

The fact of the matter is that NV had a much better pool of weapons to choose from and 4 watered variety down to attachments and firing modes.

>the only meaningful difference between most weapons of the same category is damage. Once you can use the better versions, the old ones go into the trash.

Not true. There were other differences like fire rate, ammo capacity, accuracy, ammo type, and perk affects. Your 44 was better in the long run, but you start with the 357 and work your way up while 44 rounds become more common. In 4, there's virtually no reason for you to not have the best of the best from the start because ammo is too plentiful and the variety is low. The only real reason you don't get a maxed out sniper in 4 is because of those perk locks that I mentioned about. As I said with the empty shroud of gun variety, the perk locks help hide how limited the weapons really are. Start a new game with everything unlocked and you'll find how quickly you end up with the same guns.

Ammo type is also a huge factor in 3/NV. The stronger weapons used more rare ammo that wasn't cheap or common. Late game had them be more common so you could use the guns more. You stuck with the 357 because you had 200 rounds for it. You didn't use the 44 because you had 12. In 4, with ammo being shared by the few guns in each category and it being found all over, that light restriction was gone. Why go with the pipe pistol if the 10mm is there? Why go with the double barrel if the combat shotgun is there? It's all right there for the taking. You don't really need to work for those guns or use them sparingly.

Then there was the durability and the cost of repairs. Better weapons were expensive as fuck and if you were lucky enough to find one, it was damn near broken. A level 5 player who found a sniper is going to get a few shots with it before it breaks. Repairing it costs thousands and they likely don't have that money on them. So they'll opt for the cowboy repeater that is common enough that repairing it with parts is viable and the ammo is plentiful.

NV's balance for weapons made you use most weapons as you progressed. As you leveled up and got more money, the better guns became more viable to use so you gradually moved up, learning to appreciate each gun for the times you used them. In 4, you don't really get to appreciate the guns because you have no reason to really use the worse ones.

>or a slightly less abundant ammo, the only meaningful difference between most weapons of the same category is damage. Once you can use the better versions, the old ones go into the trash.

It seems like all of your arguments are in favor of streamlining and watering down. In 4, you essentially can go carrying a single gun with ease. You don't need an arsenal. That's essentially what you're arguing in favor for.

>Is that really an argument you want to make? Because the gunplay isn't perfect. But are you truly going to argue that it isn't a huge improvement from what we got in FO3 and NV?

Yes. For the reasons I already stated, 3/NVs was better. 4's was smoother looking and the grenade hotkey was a godsend, I found 3/NVs as better. They were clunky, but far less prone to glitching and it played with your Skills and perks. 4's combat just ups your damage output with your perks.

>This is nitpicking. Every game has flaws. Ammo is abundant in every fallout game. And I don't care if players want to use PA all the time. This is a non issue.

Which is why I didn't phrase it at all like a serious issue with the game. I phrased it like the minor annoyance it is.

>The whole point of an RPG is that you shouldn't be forced to do anything. You can rebuild the entire commonwealth, make a few bases or simply not touch the feature at all if you don't like it. It's called roleplay. And saying "well you need mods for that", when NV is unplayable without mods is just ridiculous.

First, what does that have to do with anything I said about settlement building other than the base game being lacking?

I can't enjoy 4's base building without mods. I've tried. So limited and boring as sin. The build limit is a serious problem. It needs mods or I'd never play it. The same can't be said for NV. While I strongly prefer mods for NV, I can at least still have fun with the base game.

Again, you try criticizing me saying I didn't want to hear opposing opinions, but you've done nothing but dismiss everything I said and say I'm wrong. Who's the real one not listening to opposing views? You then say I can't have my mind changed, but you've made no noticeable shifts to anything anyone has said and have been pretty hostile to people who disagreed. I'm open to hearing opposing opinions. I frequent areas that welcome opposing views and I engage with them frequently. You accused me of not being able to change, but I've seen no evidence of you wavering on your opinions either. My opinions on 4 are strong, but never really solid. When I first played, I believed the gunplay was great, but then I started to see the flaws. My opinion changed with more information. You snap at people who disagree.

@Wertologist I'm not saying every single reply should be a 1h video. I simply thought it was a good way to start the conversation. But whatever, I see your point, let's get into it:

Quote :

Sales are a good measure. While it was more mainstream, to hint or imply a majority of players weren't older fans would be something hard to prove. How do you know that it didn't appeal to both?

I already explained how. Skyrim sold six times more copies than Morrowind and three times more copies than Oblivion, meaning the fan base is mostly new. Doesn't mean that older players necessarily disliked it, however, when you look at what people who still play Morrowind in 2021 have to say they generally don't like Skyrim. I understand that's a little anecdotic, but when you compare the two, they're about as different as FO2 is from FO4, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Quote :

When I first played 3, I made most of my caps selling junk. I selected junk by a weight v cap basis. It helped make extra money on my travels to break even when buying supplies. I tended to walk away from every merchant either gaining money after buying what I need or only losing a few caps. I always had a surplus of caps because of this system I had. Some junk was worth picking up while some wasn't worth it. It was never useless in 3 or NV.

You're completely missing the point.

Quote :

Part of what made it good in those games was because not all junk was useful or worth collecting. When everything is valuable, why leave any? Why sort through when you can just spam the pickup button? In 3/NV, you had to pick and choose

That kind of thinking would be fine if you were playing TES, but you're not. In a post apocalyptic world, EVERYTHING should be valuable. Like, that's the point. Civilization is gone, so things that might have been mundane pre war are now treasures.

Think about it like this. In the Fallout Universe, the world ran out of petroleum long ago. Have you ever noticed how the weapons in NV are all made of wood and metal even if in real life they might be synthetic? It's for this very reason. Think about how that society would look at an old plastic spoon or a broken umbrella. They would be as valuable as gold because you can't produce plastic anymore. But the reason why they would be valuable isn't the item in itself, it's the material they're made of. Commerce in Fallout shouldn't just be finding a few trinkets to sell in the nearest pawn shop, and FO4 reflects that perfectly.

Quote :

You literally just said that the solution was looking all over. What do you think "looking all over creation" means? To go around looking in buildings and/or checking merchants. That's part of "looking all over" means. That's not dishonest. That's what you do and what you just said you do.

No, I said exactly the opposite. You make it sound as if it is this arduous task that requires you to look for hours for a little bit of glue or whatever. Just play the game and you can find what you need.

Quote :

The motive argument doesn't stand up much too well when we see the results of them. They're a happily married couple and we see absolutely no signs of negativity there. To say that maybe they're crappy people deep down is a huge stretch. There really was not a lot of wiggle room. You're still a married man/woman. You can't argue motivations to excuse that.

Yes, I get it. They're married. So? Are you seriously telling me you can't add anything to that?

Quote :

4 had the most locked down backstory of any other FO protagonist. That can't be overlooked or dismissed

No, I don't agree with that premise. Knowing the character's profession and seeing 5 minutes of a spouse we know nothing about is hardly a backstory at all.

Quote :

And 2's protag was far more loose. Nothing was set in stone other than lineage and origin. You may have been happy there. You may have hated it. You may have been indifferent. There was nothing to really indicate one way or another.

Suuuure. Because that's what people do when they hate their family and village, the risk their lives to save them

We know far more about the Chosen's life than we do about the Sole Survivor's. We get to explore Arroyo far more than we get to see of Sanctuary Hills. Literally the only thing the SS has that other protagonists didn't is the voice.

Quote :

How many opportunities does the player get to act like an asshole merc? Can't remember a single time.

Well then, you have a terrible memory, because that's literally every other conversation where you can squeeze a poor farmer (or merchant or prospector or whatever) for more caps.

Quote :

No matter how you want to try to pretend to be, you're still that happily married man who had a nice house in the suburbs, a wife, and son.

No matter what you pretend to be in NV, you're still that mailman from California, who has traveled all around the wasteland, who was hired to carry the platinum chip, who brought the ICBM launch codes to the divide.

Quote :

Yeah, and you had to think it through because your SPECIAL stats affected not only your health and shit, but also what perks you could get. With a low INT, you're not getting the Nerd Rage perk. Not enough STR means no Heavy Weight perk. Low INT also meant that you got less skill points to use. Your SPECIAL choices mattered. You could eventually raise them all higher, but it was a late-game reward and still limited because you had a perk limit due to the level cap. In 4, the SPECIALs just seem like tacked on stat boosts and prerequisite locks for perks. With a maxed out STR, I never really felt strong. With a maxed out INT, I never really felt smart. They felt like keys to the perk door more than anything else, especially when you can just keep playing to max them all out. Then they feel even more empty.

I've been getting the impression the problem isn't FO4, is that you played FO3 when you were a child so you found it far more difficult than it actually is.

First, in both FO3 and NV, intense training is a level 2 perk. It's not a late game thing, you can start raising your SPECIALs pretty much immediately. Even with the level cap, it doesn't matter because having so many points means you are a star from the beginning. And because they're completely disconnected from your skills, you're not making a character, you just choose the most useful ones, Intelligence specially since it's a skill point vending machine. In FO4 they actually make the basis of your character because they determine what perks you can get. For instance, if you want to run several towns, you actually need good charisma. No more Speech 100 - Charisma 1 characters.

Quote :

A high gun skill in NV let you pass slill checks in dialogue that would open other options or give flavor to the conversation. Your skills affected your options and your abilities.

That isn't an argument in favor of skills, it's an argument against FO4's dialogue system. You can do exactly the same simply tying those speech checks to perks.

Quote :

Because that's how skills work.... If you want to do better, you put points to make them better. You're arguing against one of the core aspects of an RPG....right after you just tried arguing that 4 was a good example of RPG mechanics. You're contradicting yourself

The point I'm trying to make here is, when you're in control of the action, that formula doesn't work. That system was created for an entirely different kind of game. When you move to a different format, the system has to change. The core of an RPG is the ability to roleplay and make a character and story of your own, not a 30 year old system that doesn't fit the new format.

Quote :

Why not drop perks altogether then? Why not just make it a hack and slash? Your argument here is that skills feel tacked on for you, but they actually did something in 3/NV. In 4, they're just stat boosts for the most part. To say that 3/NV's skills are gamey, you're saying 4 is too. If you want to get rid of skills, why not get rid of perks and have everyone end up being the same?

Precisely because then it wouldn't be an RPG. An RPG needs progression, I'm not opposed to that. I'm simply saying that just because a system worked in the classics doesn't mean that it should still be around 20 years later on a significantly different game.

Quote :

As opposed to 4 where it just takes an arbitrary lock off a crafting option? Again, if you're going to argue that skills are pointless because you can just skip it to go right for perks, why not skip perks and have everything available at the start? You don't see a noticeable change in 4. While 3/NV had a rough implementation, it still worked. In 4, it's just meticulous unlocking of restrictions. "lol can't craft that scope without the right perk". In 3/NV, as rough as the checkpoint skill levels were, you still noticed a change when you hit those checkpoints. Sure, it could have been done a bit better, but it was still doing it's job for the most part. When you hit 50 in guns, you found your gun sway shrink and your damage went up as well as skill checks being available. In 4, all I notice with a perk increase is being able to craft a new upgrade or buy a merchant stand that someone else will operate.

The point here is this: Every time you level up you should be getting something. That's what leveling up means. There should be some kind of new ability you get. In FO4 that always happens. Whether it is being able to pick harder locks or build supply lines between your towns. You always get something. In FO3 and NV you can spend all your skill points and get absolutely nothing.

Quote :

Yeah, who could forget bandit camp #27 or Super Mutant camp #19 just around the corner! While 4 did a better job fleshing out individual areas, the city as a whole was not fun to explore. Exploring one street means you explored them all. They were all very samey. All compact and filled with camps of raiders or mutants. Very few locations really stood out there and I couldn't be assed to bother exploring more of it because it became repetitive and I got tired of fighting raiders and/or mutants on every other street corner.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. In a massive open world of course you're going to have open areas. How come the same criticism doesn't apply to New Vegas and its overabundance of cazador nests?

Quote :

Let's say you wanted to go from A to B. You head out and come across a group of wandering raiders. That's fine. It's expected and fine. Then you run into a creature of some kind and then more creatures a little later on. Then wandering raiders again or maybe a raider camp. The thing with 3 was that they were varied and evenly represented. While raiders were the more common type, they didn't completely overshadow the other enemies. I saw each enemy type in 3 a reasonable amount of times no matter what direction I was headed.

OK, but the only game where that actually happens is FO3 because they completely randomized encounters. Further, since most enemies were basically the same, sure, they looked differently, but you were fighting the same thing over and over.

Quote :

Hardly. 4 tried tacking on some things to some creatures, but they either were extremely annoying or minscule. I started just running past all mole rats after getting tired of them warping around reality by digging. Scorpions would unsheathe their katanas after teleporting behind you every single encounter. It was worse than the Balverines in the first Fable game. They all still have the head weak spot in 4 so that is an empty boast.

In FO3 and NV, ghouls are your standard melee enemy. They run towards you and perform a melee attack. You shoot them in the head in order to kill them. In FO4, ghouls are extremely fast and agile and they even have a unique attack. Shooting them is tough because of how fast they move. However, if you manage to cripple the legs, they can't move and become completely vulnerable, making them extremely easy to kill. And you can cripple the legs faster than you can kill them. So your best bet is always to shoot the legs first.

In FO3, a deathclaw is again, a standard melee enemy, only more dangerous. They run towards you and perform a melee attack. You shoot them in the head in order to kill them. You could shoot the legs and they wont be able to jump, but that makes virtually no difference, it's better to just kill them as quickly as possible because of how deadly they are. In FO4, a deathclaw's weak point isn't the head, it's the belly. But rather than running at you in much the same way as ghouls do (like in FNV), deathclaws actually protect their belly, so hitting them there is difficult.

Once you start paying attention, you realize virtually every single enemy in FO4 is unique.

Quote :

You're contradicting yourself again. First you say that your argument isn't that they're excellent, but excellently designed, but then make the argument that they're excellent while skimping out on the design parts. Your whole argument here is on the "excellent" part.

You really need to read more carefully. I said from a lore perspective, of course the legion, the NCR or Mr. House are more interesting. It's how the BoS, The MM or the Railroad are designed to perfectly reflect who they are through the story.

Quote :

Mundane changes tacked on to hide lack of real variety. A raider with a pipe pistol is still a raider with a pipe pistol. Doesn't matter what you put on that gun, it's still a pipe pistol. Lasers offer a bit more freedom, but it's still tacked on. It's all the same gun even if it shoots a little different. In older FO games, there was actual variety. Your laser pistol felt different than your automatic laser rifle.

I'm sorry, "even if it shoots a little different"? A sniper rifle, an assault rifle and a pistol, don't "shoot a little different". They're entirely different weapons.

Quote :

Not true. There were other differences like fire rate, ammo capacity, accuracy, ammo type, and perk affects. Your 44 was better in the long run, but you start with the 357 and work your way up while 44 rounds become more common. In 4, there's virtually no reason for you to not have the best of the best from the start because ammo is too plentiful and the variety is low. The only real reason you don't get a maxed out sniper in 4 is because of those perk locks that I mentioned about. As I said with the empty shroud of gun variety, the perk locks help hide how limited the weapons really are. Start a new game with everything unlocked and you'll find how quickly you end up with the same guns.

Ammo type is also a huge factor in 3/NV. The stronger weapons used more rare ammo that wasn't cheap or common. Late game had them be more common so you could use the guns more. You stuck with the 357 because you had 200 rounds for it. You didn't use the 44 because you had 12. In 4, with ammo being shared by the few guns in each category and it being found all over, that light restriction was gone. Why go with the pipe pistol if the 10mm is there? Why go with the double barrel if the combat shotgun is there? It's all right there for the taking. You don't really need to work for those guns or use them sparingly.

Then there was the durability and the cost of repairs. Better weapons were expensive as fuck and if you were lucky enough to find one, it was damn near broken. A level 5 player who found a sniper is going to get a few shots with it before it breaks. Repairing it costs thousands and they likely don't have that money on them. So they'll opt for the cowboy repeater that is common enough that repairing it with parts is viable and the ammo is plentiful.

NV's balance for weapons made you use most weapons as you progressed. As you leveled up and got more money, the better guns became more viable to use so you gradually moved up, learning to appreciate each gun for the times you used them. In 4, you don't really get to appreciate the guns because you have no reason to really use the worse ones.

Again, this whole thing sounds like you simply were awful at NV because none of this is true.

First, all those differences are marginal, at best. There are games where a weapon's accuracy, fire rate or capacity are an important thing to consider. But FNV isn't one of them. You can literally stop time to shoot.

Second, ammo in FNV is plentiful. EXTREMELY plentiful. You can get a plasma or laser pistol in Goodspings and go all the way to the Strip without having to use any other weapon ever. I would know, I've done it, it's extremely easy. Condition and durability isn't an issue either, repair kits aren't that rare, you can get two at the beginning just by killing some ants for Jackson, and you will find a few more laser pistols along the way, not many, but enough. The only reason why you would use a cowboy repeater is because you want to.

Quote :

It seems like all of your arguments are in favor of streamlining and watering down. In 4, you essentially can go carrying a single gun with ease. You don't need an arsenal. That's essentially what you're arguing in favor for.

You don't need an arsenal in NV either.

Quote :

Yes. For the reasons I already stated, 3/NVs was better. 4's was smoother looking and the grenade hotkey was a godsend, I found 3/NVs as better. They were clunky, but far less prone to glitching and it played with your Skills and perks. 4's combat just ups your damage output with your perks.

If you insist, but it's a ridiculous thing to say nonetheless. FO3/NV's combat is objectively awful.

Quote :

I can't enjoy 4's base building without mods. I've tried. So limited and boring as sin. The build limit is a serious problem. It needs mods or I'd never play it. The same can't be said for NV. While I strongly prefer mods for NV, I can at least still have fun with the base game.

OK... I don't agree. Which is really the only thing I can say here. All you're telling me is you don't like it, which, fair enough, but that's not an objective measure.

Jesus, are you paid to promote this game or what mate? Lets agree that this game has flaws that in the long run turn away certain audience, myself included and maybe leave it at that. Im glad you find the game enjoyable and stimulating, that is the goal of the medium afterall, so Fallout 4 has found its purpose there, we others are going to look elsewhere for it;)
And I actually watched your whole video (had to made myself to finish it as it draged excesively long) and didnt really changed my view in any aspect, probably just made my opinion stronger. Felt bit propagand-ish even, focusing on out of context individual parts and thus looking away from wider picture, where these individualy working parts fail. Have you watched mine? What do you think?

Fallout 4 is definitely my favorite of the series but I might be a little biased since I only play them in 3rd person and it looked just awful in the previous games. I know we should only praise the saint new vegas when speaking of fallout games but aside from the trench coat rangers the game isn't as fun to play as 4, after having played both for probably thousand(s) of hours. Could also be that I've made 100s? of mods for myself in 4 too and when I played NV I couldn't do much other than some retextures

So... TL;DR; Fallout 4 sucks donkey dick and it's not that great? I strongly disagree. I still play it every now and then though, due to the replay value it has.

It depends so much on whether or not you're an old-timer like me (remembering fallout 1 and 2 from when they came out), or a new player who has known nothing beyond fallout 4, or somewhere in between.
It's also important to note that a game pretty much has two different ways of looking at it -- at the time it was created, and in hindsight. Fallout 3, at the time, was a god damned dream come true. My most beloved franchise, surely dead forever, and suddenly... suddenly it was alive again. I went mad with joy that it was back. That I'd see a deathclaw and power armor again. I couldn't believe ... fallout was BACK! I'd given up hope.
In hindsight I'm a lot more critical.

I remember when New Vegas was released. I remember the rage directed at it, and not just because of the bugs. It faired poorly at first, but now, in hindsight, gets nothing short of absolute worship.

Fallout 4? I think a vocal minority is SO LOUD that they seem like the vast and almost unchallenged majority. Someday (maybe soon) it will be quietly recognizable as not the worst thing in the universe, as people begin to realize that, look, it sold incredibly well, so why is the overwhelming opinion online that it is the true source of all the world's evil? Vocal minority, VERY vocal.

I have problems with new vegas and 3, but they're ones that no one else cares about. My comments on fallout 4 are more recognizable to the community; it's really hard to argue that charisma and intelligence weren't pushed to the wayside compared to older fallouts, in favor of improved shooting. It's really hard to "make a build" because the stats don't seem to matter; player skill rules the day.

RPGS, other than ones trying to be retro/indie, are moving away from the dungeons and dragons inspired dice-based systems, and toward the reflex-based systems inspired by Doom. The differences between somethings like Assassin's Creed, GTA, and Fallout are shrinking. That's going to upset a lot of old-timers who remember these as absolutely different genres with nothing in common.

Nope. Still garbage. Too many bad design decisions at its core. Too many systems have been neutered or outright removed. And content wise the quests, writing, characters, and loot don't measure up. There is no fix for all of that.

Despite their age, 3 and New Vegas are the better games.

DrCube wrote:

Nope. Still garbage. Too many bad design decisions at its core. Too many systems have been neutered or outright removed. And content wise the quests, writing, characters, and loot don't measure up. There is no fix for all of that.

Despite their age, 3 and New Vegas are the better games.

This is a weird kind of sentiment that usually dominates any discussion about Fallout 4, and no offense - Just gonna be honest - I hate it. Why does Fallout 4 have to be garbage or even bad if it doesn't live up to NV or 3? It doesn't, it doesn't even come close - But these are seminal games we're talking about, titans among their peers, the leading heads of an entire genre. I doubt many games period could be as good as 3 and NV, but that hardly makes them bad if they don't live up to that lofty standard.

Personally, I see Fallout 4 as a pretty decent entry in the series. It's not great, it's not better than 3 or NV - But it's hardly bad.

@DrCube Sigh

Do you have anything meaningful to say? Anything at all? Or did you come back to a long archived conversation just to say "Nuh-uh. Fallout 4 bad"?

With everything being ported from 76 to 4 YES by a mile!!!! Looking forward to seeing a lot of the mechanic's like weapon and armor repair make it's way back.

IIHawkerII wrote:

This is a weird kind of sentiment that usually dominates any discussion about Fallout 4, and no offense - Just gonna be honest - I hate it. Why does Fallout 4 have to be garbage or even bad if it doesn't live up to NV or 3? It doesn't, it doesn't even come close - But these are seminal games we're talking about, titans among their peers, the leading heads of an entire genre. I doubt many games period could be as good as 3 and NV, but that hardly makes them bad if they don't live up to that lofty standard.

Personally, I see Fallout 4 as a pretty decent entry in the series. It's not great, it's not better than 3 or NV - But it's hardly bad.

It's a common sentiment that emerged mere months after the game launched. There is nothing weird about it. There is a reason why it continues to persist, 6 years later, because there is more than a sliver of truth to it and it irks me when people get riled up when it's stated bluntly. By this point you should damn well know the overall split opinions on this game that will forever follow it.

Not even mods can fix Fallout 4 but the most concerning thing about it is when you compare it against Skyrim because those two chart a worrying trajectory. Fallout 4 went past the point of streamlining. We're no longer cutting away fat here. Prime meat is coming off the bone and the game is straying into territory it shouldn't. 4 did not build upon 3 or New Vegas yet that's all Bethesda had to do. They could have kept their minecraft-lite experience. I could have even...barely...tolerated their dogshit radiant quest system but only if they had retained what made 3 and New Vegas special. But no. Whatever cabal of designers got together for Fallout 4 lost sight of the fundamentals and core aspects that made this franchise popular in the first place and I have a problem with that.



And as for you, gavin gold, I don't care how much you don't like hearing it. I don't care what kind of unseen or unappreciated "depth" you think you've uncovered while playing Fallout 4. The game is starting to resemble an Ubisoft Far Cry game.

@DrCube

So... You kinda just ignored everything I said and doubled down. 'It's garbage because it doesn't live up to 3 or NV'. You kinda missed the point, man. I don't disagree with you for the most part about what Fallout 4 lacks and it's overall state - But it's not garbage.

In the world of RPGs, Fallout 4 is an okay meal at a decent restaraunt. It's not a Michelin star, five course extravaganza like the games you want to compare it to - But it's not doodoo on a plate.

IIHawkerII wrote:

@DrCube

So... You kinda just ignored everything I said and doubled down. 'It's garbage because it doesn't live up to 3 or NV'. You kinda missed the point, man. I don't disagree with you for the most part about what Fallout 4 lacks and it's overall state - But it's not garbage.

In the world of RPGs, Fallout 4 is an okay meal at a decent restaraunt. It's not a Michelin star, five course extravaganza like the games you want to compare it to - But it's not doodoo on a plate.

I read what you said and I've heard it all before.

No. I do not have that sort of charity for Fallout 4. The game is a case of one step forward, six steps back. For someone who has never played Fallout, if all they know is something like the Assassin's Creed series, I could see why they may think it's the best thing ever. Fallout 3 was my first Fallout game and I thought it was incredible but I do not judge 4 in a vacuum like that. It delivers a subpar, garbage experience that doesn't measure up to its predecessors...at all. Moreover, there is no reason for it to be so willfully regressive. That's just bad design mixed with a hefty amount of chasing gameplay fads/trends. The chef may get some compliments regarding the side dishes (like 4's changes to power armor) but the main course is thumbs down.

@DrCube

Quote :

It's a common sentiment that emerged mere months after the game launched

Because, sadly, a good portion of the Fallout Fanbase specially the older fans are loudmouth malcontents who mindlessly hate whatever new thing comes out just because it isn't an isometric RPG.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that everyone who likes the classics is a loudmouth malcontent, far from it. I think it's perfectly fine if Fallout 4 is just not your cup of tea. I'm talking about the people who are perpetually bitter because "Bethesda bad".

Quote :

Fallout 4 went past the point of streamlining. We're no longer cutting away fat here. Prime meat is coming off the bone and the game is straying into territory it shouldn't.

Let me guess, "muh skillz"?

Yes, because being able to put a bunch points in a series of arbitrary categories - completely at will, by the way, you don't even have to reflect what your character has been doing - just so that you can actually hit your target, even though you're the one doing the shooting, is peak roleplay.

Quote :

but only if they had retained what made 3 and New Vegas special

Fallout 3 and New Vegas are extremely different games. Both are great, but for largely the exact opposite reasons. Talking about "what made (them both) great" as if Fallout 3 didn't discard a lot of what people liked about Fallout and Fallout 2 to bring new elements to the table, and Fallout NV didn't do the same with Fallout 3 is nonsense.

Quote :

Whatever cabal of designers got together for Fallout 4 lost sight of the fundamentals and core aspects that made this franchise popular in the first place and I have a problem with that.

The Franchise wasn't popular before, dude. That's why Interplay/Black Isle went bankrupt. Bethesda made it popular. And even now, with all the hate, Fallout 4 is more popular than FO3 and FNV, combined.

Quote :

And as for you, gavin gold, I don't care how much you don't like hearing it. I don't care what kind of unseen or unappreciated "depth" you think you've uncovered while playing Fallout 4. The game is starting to resemble an Ubisoft Far Cry game.

Good. You don't need to care at all what I think. And likewise, I don't have to care about your opinion, and I don't. But that's not the point. I asked whether you had anything to add or where you just here to repeat the same old "Fallout 4 bad". And so far you haven't.

Wertologist wrote:

@"gavin gold"
> When I first played 3, I made most of my caps selling junk. I selected junk by a weight v cap basis. It helped make extra money on my travels to break even when buying supplies.

Would you mind telling me what to look out for in New Vegas I just got into modding even though i've played it on console since launch and I'm going into a really hardcore playthrough with Economy overhaul added on top and I'm just wondering if you have any tips thanks.

A lot of games that are deeply hated by a portion of the gamer base would not have received the same kind of absolute rage if they'd been independent releases by an indie developer. 2077 would have been panned no matter what for its bugs, but as an indie release, it wouldn't have absolutely enraged the witcher 3 fans.
Mass Effect, New Vegas, Witcher 3, Dragon Age 1, I loved 'em, but they're having a toxic affect on future releases of games that would otherwise be seen as "meh, not my thing" rather than "YOU VILE EVIL FROM HELL!" Fallout 4 was smarter than, say, Rage, which is not screamed at for being garbage.

I loved the intelligence of New Vegas and Fallout 2. But they're dead and gone, they're almost certainly not coming back, at least not like how the fans want. I moved on.

I'm gonna be real with you guys but back then I was very much against Fallout 4 like I hated every inch of it with most complaints just borderline ridiculous and with some internalization I realized that my hate for it stems from my personal frustrations on the technical side of things because my computer couldnt run it like I want to (below 30 fps most of the time lol)
.
.
This all went away when my brother got me a ps4 pro to play it on so that means I played this game top to bottom in a vanilla state wiht a much more stable fps and because ps4 mods just don't exist lol I'm currently banking in at 7 days, 6 hours, at level 162 and I gotta say my perspective of fallout 4 completely changed during my playthrough. The game definitely has its faults and there are parts that I really miss from past fallout games, but it doesn't make fallout 4 immediately trash just because some features are gone (ammo switching and varying guns).
.
Also I noticed that the bullet sponges in fallout 4 are due to your character's skills and weapons being unoptimized or maybe that's just me. I don't remember going up a raider, super mutant, or mutants in general being very bullet spongey for no reason unless of course it's a boss-like mutant like a Mirelurk Queen or Mythical Deathclaw. Maybe because I always look up their resistances in VATS and use VATS for majority of the game that's why I didn't feel it but it wouldn't make much sense either if I played a fallout game and didn't use VATS at all. That would be dumb.
.
tl;dr fallout 4 isn't as bad as people make it to be, yes there are complaints about it but what game doesn't? ironic too that so many people complain about fallout 4 while subsequently modding things from fallout 4 into new vegas like wtf is up with that hahahaha you guys really need to move on

To be honest, I've had no issue with FO4 as a game, or part of the Fallout legacy.  Been playing the franchise from the beginning, as well as Wasteland, and yeah, sure there are some lore issues, but any series this long and this large is going to get that.  Wouldn't want to see future Fallouts stray further from the classic formula, though. (Edit), I guess 76 has already strayed too far, being an always on line, essentially MMPRG. I still get by in 76 playing solo.

I do feel, however that the franchise in general is losing some it's Cold War era flavor, but mods and one's own imagination can still make it work.