I think people have to stop looking at fallout 4 as an RPG. Because it isn't one, it's an action adventure FPS with light role playing elements, it's no more of a full blown RPG than stalker is. Stalker is a good comparison, add in scavenging and crafting/settlement building mechanics and add in power armor and you more or less have your americanized stalker experience. People forget that they made this game simplified from the start, Emil's "KISS(Keep It Simple, Stupid) philosophy was aimed at casuals and bethesda fans, so that they would attract more people and re-create skyrim's legendary success. I don't think they've succeeded, and the game suffered because of it. F76 doubled down on this concept, and it can barely be called a fallout game anymore, before or after wastelanders.
It's a shame, too. There is plenty of times I felt the game was struggling to be a proper RPG or fallout experience, but it was kept down and was forced to be what todd and co. wanted it to be: a theme park experience that WOWED the player start to finish, but with little in the way of polish or fun if you strayed out of the coaster cart to explore. That one quest with the USS Constitution(which, btw, was made by a former obsidian dev, so that's why it felt like a proper quest), entirety of Far Harbor and even parts of Automatron and Nuka World showed me what could have been, but couldn't, due to the game being kneecapped from the start. Nuka World is particularly heart breaking, as I feel it wants to be so much more, but due to shaky foundations, all it could have ever been was a set of interesting dungeons with little more than shooting and killing. Even the story had potential, but ultimately, the factions you were forced to side with were boring and one dimensional, the game could be salvaged if most of the choices in the base game were centered around this faction conflict and the factions were much more fleshed out and extremist. Ultimately, the whole synth conflict is boring, railroad is shown as a misguided, insufferable faction nobody really wants to side with, and both the minutemen and brotherhood give you little reason to side with them unless you're role playing. The factions could be redeemed a bit if Nuka World would let you actually side with the raider gangs as the alternative to minutemen, for all the main quests they cover(even if it's mostly the same content, with a few more alternative quests). Like in many other respects, these really good ideas fall flat on their face

I think people will appreciate the game more if they treat it for what it is, again, an action-scavenging game rather than a proper RPG. I liked tactics, too, but that game isn't an RPG, it is a real time/turn based strategy game pretending to be an RPG(much more so than F4, too). Tactics and 4 show me that Fallout doesn't have to be an RPG, exactly, but something has to fill in that role. I like Fallout 4, despite every problem I have with it, but I can see why people hate it. 76, on the other hand, strips the base F4 even more so and introduces little but micro transactions and half-assed multiplayer elements to the game. I should mention that NV also has a multiplayer mod, and it plays much better than F76 ever did. But with that said, F4 isn't a bad game, even F76 isn't the worst fallout game. That title belongs to Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel for PS2 and Xbox. Turning Fallout into a parody of itself, and replacing all RPG elements with a top-down boring shooter, IS bad mix that nobody ended up liking. To give you the idea of what kind of game that is, it's the fallout game that has Nine Inch Nails in it's soundtrack, and replaces all mentions of Nuka Cola with "Bawls Energy Drink", a real world cross promotion and a drink nobody outside of people who played the game even know about. For all it's flaws, F4 will always be more of a Fallout game than BOS

Sonichu_fanboy wrote:

I think people have to stop looking at fallout 4 as an RPG.

Man, I'm really sorry. But as I've gotten older and been a part of the Fallout community longer and longer, I really can't get behind this take. It's genuinely insufferable to me because of how derisive and elitist it comes across. Whenever people say 'Fallout 4 isn't an RPG', they're always looking to compare it to seminal titles - They never have criteria that makes sense - It's just a mess, a definition that's twisted and deformed to suit the person saying it's tastes. "I don't link this game, therefore it isn't an RPG" - As if you're denying the game some kind of badge of honor.

Some minor stuff:
- Ferret Baudoin, the guy you're crediting as 'Being good because he came from obsidian circa 2006' also wrote the Railroad in Fallout 4 and the Steel Dawn / Steel Reign story in Fallout 76. Being from Obsidian means close to nothing. Obsidian can put out a trainwreck like the Outer Worlds and Bethesda can put out a great story like Far Harbor, the company affiliation isn't really a standard for quality.
- Fallout 76 course corrected massively on the missing RPG elements from fallout 4, especially after Wastelanders. Your exclusion of the game just comes across as petty or uninformed. Hell, they even went back in and added new Roleplaying mechanics we'd never seen before like negative dialogue checks.
- Complaining that the factions in Fallout 4 felt one dimensional seems incredibly shallow to me, what are you comparing them too? Because the only other Fallout game that had factions at the time was New Vegas, and I'd argue 4 provided far more interesting factions than the Legion or NCR. It'd be nice to hear what your specific gripes are with each faction. I'd even argue the Synth problem is a more layered and interesting plot than 'Two big armies both want this land'.

Lets be real, It's gonna look like I'm jerking Todd off here. I get it. People see someone sticking up for Bethesda and assume they're drowning in Koolaid. But I'll be honest, I see the same flaws as most people - Where I differ is the degree. Fallout 4 screws up so many important things - Things you'd have to be stupid to mess with like the dialogue system. But people seem so drunk on spite that they're willing to exaggerate many of it's other flaws and even dump on things that it did well.

Credit where credit is due, is my philosophy when it comes to Fallout 4 and by that logic - I think it is better than many people will care to admit, because of how trendy it is to hate on this game and spit on it's accomplishments.

Hmm, I never thought the factions in 4 were one dimensional myself.  Perhaps they could have used a bit more fleshing out, but their set up and backstories were good.  Coming across the Gunner vault for the first time is an experience.

Whatever one wants to call 4, be it 'FPS with light roleplay' or an actual RPG it's hit a sweet spot, for me anyway, between the two.  Consider that both FO4 and STALKER are very long lived, much loved, with fans doing multiple playthroughs.  I fire them both up at least twice a year.  They both have found that draw for people where you have unlimited freedom of movement, but choices and demands regarding your health, survivability, etc.

When you're playing the game in this from, your own actions and how you approach the open world and its challenges are the genuine RPG stats.

The debate over the direction of the franchise, rpg-wise rages, but for some reason many of us derive just as much enjoyment from FO1 as from FO4.  Setting, theme and mood weighs in heavily here.

I wasn't too impressed by the faction choices in new vegas, but I was glad they were there. Independent felt like such a good choice to me, the first time around, comparing to giving or sharing power with another.
The NCR and Legion were undeveloped in my opinion, because you really, really need to see what they've done with civilization to make an informed choice. We can't visit shady sands, and only see some almost raider-like idiots representing the Legion's people.
If Shady Sands is anything like it was in Fallout 2, that would be one hell of an ad in their favor.
If the Legion really was as safe as Cass said, and had actually created a civilization with something other than raiders ranting about profligates, that would have been interesting -- I for one found it hard to believe that Cass wasn't just immediately raped, killed and enslaved (and not in that order.) They seemed to HATE free, strong, heavy-drinking women passionately. I needed to see it for myself.
House is good... if you believe in him. I didn't (and that makes me ultra-controversial apparently.) I saw him as a pie-in-the-sky dreamer with more money than sense.
So, independent it was for me.

In Fallout 4, the institute or the minute men both seemed to have advantages just tied to whether you were nice or not. The minute men were NEVER going to rebuilt civilization, but the institute showed just how incredible of a place they could create. The brotherhood threatened Nick, so they were scrap metal. But the choice was, for me, more interesting than New Vegas, where I was definitely going independent, first time around.

I didn't like that the Railroad were considered a major faction choice on par with the others, as they weren't really rebuilders of civilization. They were, to me, more like the Kings or Followers of the Apocalypse, a secondary faction that weren't going to decide the fate of civilization, but might be able to help or hinder it a little.

My problems with FO4 rely on some simple, but deep implications. I will list them and, after that, will list the pros of FO4, but first, the issues.

Voiced Protagonist

May seem like nitpicking and it is, but having a voiced protagonist breaks a bit of my immersion, specially in an RPG where subjective experience is very important.

Lack of decistion impact.

You may see some impact from your decisions, but for the majority of the time, what you do mostly goes unnoticed by the world. I like to compare it to FO3 Broken Steel, where you can actively see the fruits of your labor after you activate project purity and yes, the destruction of the institute is something which generates impact, but the way it was implemented, imo, was not very effective.

Limited dialogue options

I understand the design decision behind the 4 options, but, imo, this limits dialogue scope, which makes encounters seem more scripted.

Strange Weapons

There's some weird designs in FO4, both concept and implementation wise, some examples are:

1. The combat shotgun and the combat rifle are basically the same weapon and they look too cartoonish.
   
2. Some weapons are hilariously scaled up, due to their decision of making weapons seem natural in powered hands, but the downside is it looks goofy in anything other than PA.
   
3. The Alien blaster is really weak, to the point of being unusable at later levels.
   
4. You can't use a scope and a targeting computer on the missile launcher.
   
5. There's no pump action shotgun, like, cmon' thats just lazy.
   
6. The Lever Action Rifle reloads all bullets independant of how many bullets were shot.
   
7. You can convert a Remington 700 based rifle to use .50 BMG, which is ridiculous.
   
8. All weapons are left-hand, which is weird.
   
9. Institute Laser Weapons are weaker than normal laser weapons, which doesn't make sense.
   
10. We don't have chinese weapons yet we visit a chinese nuclear submarine...
    

Lore Inconsistencies

Now for the most polemic topic: Lore.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of other things that piss me off more than the Lore decisions Bethesda made, but it's a fact they took one too many liberties with the source material, some examples are:

1. T-60 Power armor
   
2. Fusion Cores
   
3. The way PA's are weirdly available everywhere
   
4. The Gauss Rifle design
   

I'm sure some savvy lore aficionados can point a lot more inconsistencies, but these are the ones that mostly bother me.

Reduced RPG opportunities

Ok, this one is a bit more subjective, but I going to go out of the way and admit that this is the thing that bothers me the most, your character already has a defined background, which greatly reduces the roleplay aspect. For example, if I want to play a character that is and never was married and does not have a son, tough shit, I can't. Comparing it to FO3, where your background was molded by you, yes, you cannot choose to not be a vault dweller, but you can decide your personality, the way you deal with things in life and so on, it feels like my character was, shockingly, made by me. Of all the Fallouts, yes even the classics, the one that offers most roleplay freedom is Fallout New Vegas, since your past is only lightly touched upon, you can pretty much make your own story, which is great, since it's one of the core mechanics of an RPG.

Map size

Ok so, I just recently replayed FNV and the map just seems way bigger, like, there are a lot more things to explore than FO4, which is a shame, because they could have really explored some locations way better, like the Metros, they could have made something similar fo FO3 which has great depth to it.

Caps are useless

Ok so this one is kind of weird, but due to the way the game was designed, caps are basically useless since resources can be extracted from junk items, one might even say that junk is new bottlecap. Again, I'm not blaming this decision, I really like the creative freedom you have to build things and collect resources, but they could have added some more uses for caps.

Lack of a Skill System

Again, this one is subjective, I much prefer a skill system where I can have more flexibility with my builds.

VATS tied criticals

Another subjective one, I much prefer the critical mechanics from FO3/FNV

Smaller DLC's

This one is weird, so if you compare FO4 with FO3, the DLC's are much smaller, the only substantial ones are Far Harbor and Nuka World and even then, they are smaller than, let's say, Point Lookout.

Cut Content

All Fallouts have cut-content, but I felt FO4 was affected the most, there are so many great concepts in the artbook, for example:

1. The institute Power Armor
   
2. The Bio Rifle
   
3. Mama Murphy's chair
   
4. Radstork
   
5. RadBat
   
6. Centaurs
   
7. Makeshift shotgun
   

I'm sure there's many more, but, for me, the Institute PA and the Bio Rifle are the ones I most miss, sure there are mods, but it's not the same thing.

Now, for the Pros

Combat

FO4's combat is really great, I find myself just searching for things to kill during exploring because of how fun it is.

Power Armor

Power Armor in FO4 is legendary, It's what it should have been always, I really like it and I'm glad they choose to use this design for FO76 as well and, most likely, for future games as well.

Creature Design

Creature design in FO4 is great, It really brings Fallout to next gen.

Level Design

The Level design in FO4 is really good and often underestimated and in FO76 it is brought to an even greater level.

Weapon Customization

What can I even say about this? It's great, nuff said.

Settlement System

Say what you want about Preston, but I really enjoy the fact I can build my own base anyway I want and recruit people to live on it.

Radiation System

I prefer this radiation system, It's simpler yet it feels more immersive to me, like the radiation is literally eating away at your health, like a cancer spreading.

I think this pretty much sums up my experience and opinion with FO4, what you guys think?

Sirdanest wrote:

I wasn't too impressed by the faction choices in new vegas, but I was glad they were there.  Independent felt like such a good choice to me, the first time around, comparing to giving or sharing power with another.
The NCR and Legion were undeveloped in my opinion, because you really, really need to see what they've done with civilization to make an informed choice.  We can't visit shady sands, and only see some almost raider-like idiots representing the Legion's people.  
If Shady Sands is anything like it was in Fallout 2, that would be one hell of an ad in their favor.  
If the Legion really was as safe as Cass said, and had actually created a civilization with something other than raiders ranting about profligates, that would have been interesting -- I for one found it hard to believe that Cass wasn't just immediately raped, killed and enslaved (and not in that order.)  They seemed to HATE free, strong, heavy-drinking women passionately.  I needed to see it for myself.
House is good... if you believe in him.  I didn't (and that makes me ultra-controversial apparently.)  I saw him as a pie-in-the-sky dreamer with more money than sense.
So, independent it was for me.  

In Fallout 4, the institute or the minute men both seemed to have advantages just tied to whether you were nice or not.  The minute men were NEVER going to rebuilt civilization, but the institute showed just how incredible of a place they could create.  The brotherhood threatened Nick, so they were scrap metal.  But the choice was, for me, more interesting than New Vegas, where I was definitely going independent, first time around.

I didn't like that the Railroad were considered a major faction choice on par with the others, as they weren't really rebuilders of civilization.  They were, to me, more like the Kings or Followers of the Apocalypse, a secondary faction that weren't going to decide the fate of civilization, but might be able to help or hinder it a little.  

To be fair, one of the things I really appreciate about Fallout 4's factions is that they aren't there to 'rebuild society', that isn't the premise or focus of the game. The minutemen are the only real exemption to this - But the Institute? Brotherhood? Railroad? They're only answers to the Synth issue which lies at the heart of Fallout 4's plot, each representing a different view on humanity and the ethics behind artificial life.

'How are they gonna rebuild the world' is kind of a boring, stock standard lynch pin for many of Fallout's factions and stories and I'm pretty glad Fallout 4 tried to avoid that and base it's story around something more esoteric. Sure, they didn't really make the most of it, well at all. But I still appreciate the effort to tell a different story.

TLDR:
- The Brotherhood leaves on Crusade when the synths are dealt with, they aren't gonna develop or protect the region, they're just there to defeat an enemy.
- The Institute goes into Isolation when their reactor is complete. They plan to expand their society into an underground community and completely cut off any contact with the surface.
- The Railroad disbands once the Synths are settled into society. Their mission statement is fulfilled and they can rejoin the world knowing that there'll never be another synth to save.
- The minutemen presumably fall into a state of disuse once the region is more aggressively tamed and threats are wiped out. They're a reactionary solution to the Wasteland's problems and will only exist while those problems exist. A system of necessity.

None of the factions (With the possible exception of the Minutemen given their nebulous nature) are meant to inherit the region or rule it.

I see a lot of responses in this thread that I agree with, and my response will be nowhere near as long as others'.

I like Fallout 4, and hope to do another playthrough in the future. I think the story of the game is the biggest flaw, among many smaller flaws (ie voiced protag, weapons not on the back, etc.). It's not a bad game (in my opinion),  but it is a bad roleplaying game and a bad (also my opinion) Fallout game, which is why many fans of the series intensely dislike it. I also think the DLC focus on settlements is also a big negative I had with it.

YeezusJeezus wrote:

I see a lot of responses in this thread that I agree with, and my response will be nowhere near as long as others'.

I like Fallout 4, and hope to do another playthrough in the future. I think the story of the game is the biggest flaw, among many smaller flaws (ie voiced protag, weapons not on the back, etc.). It's not a bad game (in my opinion),  but it is a bad roleplaying game and a bad (also my opinion) Fallout game, which is why many fans of the series intensely dislike it. I also think the DLC focus on settlements is also a big negative I had with it.

I agree with you there, regarding the DLCs. IIRC, many folks, including YT reviewers, lamented the waste of time and resources on several DLC's that offered nothing but gimmicks. The DLCs of 3 and NV shine in comparison.

IIHawkerII wrote:

Sirdanest wrote:

I wasn't too impressed by the faction choices in new vegas, but I was glad they were there.  Independent felt like such a good choice to me, the first time around, comparing to giving or sharing power with another.
The NCR and Legion were undeveloped in my opinion, because you really, really need to see what they've done with civilization to make an informed choice.  We can't visit shady sands, and only see some almost raider-like idiots representing the Legion's people.  
If Shady Sands is anything like it was in Fallout 2, that would be one hell of an ad in their favor.  
If the Legion really was as safe as Cass said, and had actually created a civilization with something other than raiders ranting about profligates, that would have been interesting -- I for one found it hard to believe that Cass wasn't just immediately raped, killed and enslaved (and not in that order.)  They seemed to HATE free, strong, heavy-drinking women passionately.  I needed to see it for myself.
House is good... if you believe in him.  I didn't (and that makes me ultra-controversial apparently.)  I saw him as a pie-in-the-sky dreamer with more money than sense.
So, independent it was for me.  

In Fallout 4, the institute or the minute men both seemed to have advantages just tied to whether you were nice or not.  The minute men were NEVER going to rebuilt civilization, but the institute showed just how incredible of a place they could create.  The brotherhood threatened Nick, so they were scrap metal.  But the choice was, for me, more interesting than New Vegas, where I was definitely going independent, first time around.

I didn't like that the Railroad were considered a major faction choice on par with the others, as they weren't really rebuilders of civilization.  They were, to me, more like the Kings or Followers of the Apocalypse, a secondary faction that weren't going to decide the fate of civilization, but might be able to help or hinder it a little.  

To be fair, one of the things I really appreciate about Fallout 4's factions is that they aren't there to 'rebuild society', that isn't the premise or focus of the game. The minutemen are the only real exemption to this - But the Institute? Brotherhood? Railroad? They're only answers to the Synth issue which lies at the heart of Fallout 4's plot, each representing a different view on humanity and the ethics behind artificial life.

'How are they gonna rebuild the world' is kind of a boring, stock standard lynch pin for many of Fallout's factions and stories and I'm pretty glad Fallout 4 tried to avoid that and base it's story around something more esoteric. Sure, they didn't really make the most of it, well at all. But I still appreciate the effort to tell a different story.

TLDR:
- The Brotherhood leaves on Crusade when the synths are dealt with, they aren't gonna develop or protect the region, they're just there to defeat an enemy.
- The Institute goes into Isolation when their reactor is complete. They plan to expand their society into an underground community and completely cut off any contact with the surface.
- The Railroad disbands once the Synths are settled into society. Their mission statement is fulfilled and they can rejoin the world knowing that there'll never be another synth to save.
- The minutemen presumably fall into a state of disuse once the region is more aggressively tamed and threats are wiped out. They're a reactionary solution to the Wasteland's problems and will only exist while those problems exist. A system of necessity.

None of the factions (With the possible exception of the Minutemen given their nebulous nature) are meant to inherit the region or rule it.

I agree with you on this one, the Synth premisse is a really nice plot point and I wish they would have explored it more in depth, specifically, the philosophical implications on the realization of artificial life on the main plot, instead it's all about finding your son, which is kind of weird, synths are running around kidnapping people and you're just playing as the worried father, that bugs me a lot. Far Harbor on the other hand, delivers on this premisse beautifully, the story is really good, I specially like the ending, there's no "good" ending, It's such a nice experience.

themaster96 wrote:

I agree with you on this one, the Synth premisse is a really nice plot point and I wish they would have explored it more in depth, specifically, the philosophical implications on the realization of artificial life on the main plot, instead it's all about finding your son, which is kind of weird, synths are running around kidnapping people and you're just playing as the worried father, that bugs me a lot. Far Harbor on the other hand, delivers on this premisse beautifully, the story is really good, I specially like the ending, there's no "good" ending, It's such a nice experience.

Kinda, being the worried parent is definitely the focus of the first like - Half of the game, but once you visit the Institute and realize that Shaun is Father - Basically everything gets re-contextualized onto the synths. It's smart to use that 'worried parent' phase as a time to build up what the synths are and leave breadcrumbs of these major factions but man, they don't handle it anywhere near as well as they could've.

I like to think that, if they handled the main plot like they handled Far Harbor, it would have been way better, again, I believe the problem lies with the main premisse first presented to you, like you survived the war and yada yada. IMO it would have been better if, for example, you lived in a vault and then, one day, the door get's opened and institute synths attack your vault, killing everyone and leaving only you, then you go on to discover that the overseer was replaced and then the whole premisses is to find out who are these people and what they wanted with you and your vault, this way, you can preserve the moniker "Sole Survivor" but the background is more agnostic, leaving room for roleplaying. They could even made a section similar to FO3, where you grow up and decide from the beginning who you are, even better, make something similar to Cyberpunk and give 3 optional backgrounds, could be: Security Officer, Technician and Assistant Director.

On a side note, did anyone see the tweet from Elon Musk referencing FO:NV?

LOL

Fallout 4 is phenomenal. I just hopped back on to it and i've been having a blast for the past 2 weeks. I modded it completely and i'm enjoying making builds and taking it very slow and just exploring the commonwealth. Very fun time!

ronnova wrote:

Fallout 4 is phenomenal. I just hopped back on to it and i've been having a blast for the past 2 weeks. I modded it completely and i'm enjoying making builds and taking it very slow and just exploring the commonwealth. Very fun time!

Well I mean, a modded FO4 is pretty much built to be the ultimate personal experience, my modded FO4 is also great, but we were talking vanilla here.

I don't know what the purpose of this thread is.
It just comes across as I want people to agree with me.
Even the Fallout:NV Fans my self included in that.
Too me it just looks like Fallout 4 moving the goalpost.
For instance I think Fallout 4 is a shoddy RPG do to the reason others have listed.
You will always have to play as Nate or Nora no getting around this even if you want to ignore the tedious opening. You can't make-up a backstory for you character (the closest thing nv has to that is Ulysses) if you don't like it you don't have to play it just 1 of 4 DLC. The one thing you have to accept while playing NV is that you where a courier, but for the most part you can ignore it. Another thing I don't like is the voiced protagonist especially when not given everything that's going to be said.
Am I saying Fallout 4 is not an RPG of course not, I just don't think it's a good one. Again let me say this thread is kind of useless anyone that agrees with OP isn't going to take this post with any kind considering and the people who don't are very unlikely to change their own opinion.

Also I assume we only talking about the game itself I don't know why someone would use mods as an excuse. Saying mods make the game better is a given but it's not the game itself it's changing the core experience itself. Fixing the game with mods suddenly doesn't negate the very large problems built into the game and Bethesda themselves should not have to count on there players fixing the game they made.

Not having the mood to watch a 90 minutes video of someone praising Borderlands 4, especially when one of his key points is that 4 is actually "an excellent RPG". Up to this day, Bethesda still has no fucking idea what makes great world building, nor does this clown named Emil Pagliarulo has any idea how to write a good story. Fallout 4 is a GOOD looter shooter, yes, we all get that, but IT IS NOT a good Fallout.

anstand wrote:

Not having the mood to watch a 90 minutes video of someone praising Borderlands 4, especially when one of his key points is that 4 is actually "an excellent RPG". Up to this day, Bethesda still has no fucking idea what makes great world building, nor does this clown named Emil Pagliarulo has any idea how to write a good story. Fallout 4 is a GOOD looter shooter, yes, we all get that, but IT IS NOT a good Fallout.

Thoughts on Fallout 3?

IIHawkerII wrote:

anstand wrote:

Not having the mood to watch a 90 minutes video of someone praising Borderlands 4, especially when one of his key points is that 4 is actually "an excellent RPG". Up to this day, Bethesda still has no fucking idea what makes great world building, nor does this clown named Emil Pagliarulo has any idea how to write a good story. Fallout 4 is a GOOD looter shooter, yes, we all get that, but IT IS NOT a good Fallout.

Thoughts on Fallout 3?

I like to call Fallout 3, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel 2, but it's basically the same story as with 4.

World building was a complete and total mess, the story was incredible awful (the heavy focus on he BoS without any other faction branches was a big mistake), gunplay of course is vastly inferior than 4, though the skill/stat/perk/dialogue system was better than 4 imo. Also, the fact, that you just escape the vault to find your dad instead of looking for your fucking baby allows for more roleplay in 3. Since 4 heavily narrows your decisions in the world when actually roleplaying as a father.

anstand wrote:

I like to call Fallout 3, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel 2, but it's basically the same story as with 4.  

World building was a complete and total mess, the story was incredible awful (the heavy focus on he BoS without any other faction branches was a big mistake), gunplay of course is vastly inferior than 4, though the skill/stat/perk/dialogue system was better than 4 imo. Also, the fact, that you just escape the vault to find your dad instead of looking for your fucking baby allows for more roleplay in 3. Since 4 heavily narrows your decisions in the world when actually roleplaying as a father.

Any specific examples of the worldbuilding being a mess? As for the story, I'm guessing you mean the original ending? Because 'faction story branches' weren't a thing before Fallout NV, it's hardly a fair complaint to hold against 3 in retrospective when the precedent wasn't even established until NV.

IIHawkerII wrote:

anstand wrote:

I like to call Fallout 3, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel 2, but it's basically the same story as with 4.  

World building was a complete and total mess, the story was incredible awful (the heavy focus on he BoS without any other faction branches was a big mistake), gunplay of course is vastly inferior than 4, though the skill/stat/perk/dialogue system was better than 4 imo. Also, the fact, that you just escape the vault to find your dad instead of looking for your fucking baby allows for more roleplay in 3. Since 4 heavily narrows your decisions in the world when actually roleplaying as a father.

Any specific examples of the worldbuilding being a mess? As for the story, I'm guessing you mean the original ending? Because 'faction story branches' weren't a thing before Fallout NV, it's hardly a fair complaint to hold against 3 in retrospective when the precedent wasn't even established until NV.

Dukov's place being right next to some raiders, a scavenger setting up a place right next to super mutant base, Rivet City being cut close by a super mutant base right next to them, Rivet City's general location on the gamemap and how stupid its access is. Nobody even blinking an eye on the other half of the ship (the whole situation regarding Pinkett), the whole point about "WHAT DO THE PEOPLE EAT?" (which is valid) and many many many more examples.

Also, the fact that NPC's have so little to say about anything is also what ticks me off. Take for example your escape from Vault 101:

You leave the Vault, you explore Springvale, and suddenly find Silver's house, and you, as someone who has no idea about the Wasteland, talk to her, and the only options the game gives you is to deny that you're working for Moirya, or that she should give you the caps. If Fallout 3 had been a Obsidian game, you could have asked Silver all things about the Wasteland, and she could have acted as a good entrypoint into the new world. She could have informed you about the Raiders, about the Talon, about Megaton, and what there is all to find in the world.

That kind of world building, you know?

As for the branches, I just didn't like the fact that the whole story was about the BoS, and that the game at least didn't give you the option to finish the main quest without doing all those quests for the BoS.