Why do people hate Fallout 4 so much?

[barrettsfloyd]

I don't hate FO4, although I'm not entirely crazy about it either.

 

That said, IMO it's single biggest flaw, is probably it's biggest, most liked feature, the infernal settlement building. While I don't mind the idea of it, I simply don't care for how the entire game seems to revolve around it. It's too much. It's too much micromanaging every single settlement you choose to build.

 

I would've been far happier with a more scaled back system, with fewer locations to choose from (no more one and 2 man/woman choices), yet have the remaining choices be meatier, with more choices in management than we currently have. This would still allow those who like the idea to continue doing it to their hearts content, while allowing those of us who'd be happier avoiding it altogether to simply play the game without being inundated by it every single time we happen upon a house in the wasteland.

[AnvilOfWar]

 

 

I think it's hypocritical how everyone hates on the voiced protagonist, saying it ruins the game for them. And these are the same people saying the Witcher games are masterpieces and the model to which all other game developers should aspire.

 

Uh... if by "role-playing" you mean pretending things about your character, then, well, the Witcher games are less of a "role-playing" game than FO4. You are named Geralt, you are always male, you have a distinctive voice, you are a bad-ass and ladies' man. In "role-playing" sense this is like being in a straight-jacket.

 

I enjoy the Witcher games, I enjoy FO4. I like using what is given to us about the character to flesh them out on my own. Nora in particular has some interesting lines. She was a sorority party-girl in college, you learn this from talking with the BoS doctor. I imagine she smokes cigarettes from her voice acting, which I think is superb. She has a bit of a mean streak. Nate is an all-around OK guy. I'm fine with this. I enjoy listening to them talk in dialogue, which is in real-time and can feature multiple participants. It's cinematic and "immersive."

 

Contrast this with:

1. Tell me more.

2. OK, let me help you, I'm a great person.

3. Gimme all your caps, loser!

4. [intelligence] You seem ill, let me fix you with stimpack.

5. Let's talk about something else.

 

With a fluid, intuitive dialog that you can walk away from at any time, with professional voice actors, with pacing and so on. It's always cringe-inducing to see games' attempt at strong emotions, here is no exception, but overall I think the dialog is great. Now it's an actual conversation instead of interrogating an NPC with a list of responses.

 

 

I'm going to disagree on your assessment that it's hypocritical to hate on a voice protagonist vs games in which a voiced protagonist is used.

 

Ok it should be prefaced that I have not played the Witcher games, however as you noted you play the character of Geralt. Whom has a set appearance, set of skills, ect. Now let's compare this too Fallout 4's voiced protagonist AND prior Bethesda RPG's: Oblivion, Morrowind, Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas. In the prior games your character is given the bare minimum backstory needed, "You're a prisoner, a Vault Dweller, a Courier, ect" the less is more approach. More freedom to build and design a character in the imagination of the player. In Fallout 4, you have a family, had either military service or was a promising lawyer, was a father/mother, and now has a set voice and it seems set of morals. Even a name of Nate or Nora respectively. All of these facts are -told- to the player, rather then asking the player for the input on their character. Compare the opening of Fallout 3 vs Fallout 4. You start in a vault, how your character reacts to the events happening, your birthday party, how you react to the guests, do you put up with Butch's bullying or not at your party, how you handle taking the G.O.A.T, Do you defend Amata or join in with bullying her with the Tunnel snakes? Finally when your father leaves what do you as the player do? Gun down everyone in the vault? Avoid the guards or kill them? Help Butch or let his Mother die? Or even bully Butch in return? All of these choices for Fallout 3's aprox 1 hr character gen/prologue are the PLAYERS to make, you have agency as the player/character in the story. Compared to Fallout 4's, make your character, talk with the wife, interact with the Vault Tec rep, watch the news, and even finally get into the Vault and get frozen, only to kill about a dozen rad roaches when you thaw out in that same hour or so it will take you. With basically zero agency as the character. Bethesda gave us a preconceived character in Fallout 4 who's only choices are basic stats and physical looks. I'd respect this choice MORE if they didn't half ass it and just said for Fallout 4 "here are the two characters this is their story", The Witcher and Mass Effect you are respectively Geralt/Shepard with a much more narrowly defined "role". Fallout 4 doesn't and so those expecting character creation along the lines of almost every other Bethesda game in their library are likely disappointed in that fact.

 

The fact that I can replay the opening of Fallout 3 and have an experience where I was a "good guy" told Butch off at my party, and didn't let Amata get bullied, and forgave Butch and saved his mom since I wouldn't let someone die just cause they bullied me as a kid, OR I was an "evil SOB" that didn't stick up for myself, joined in bullying Amata trying to get in good graces with Butch, and then when that didn't happen bullied butch and let his mother die to radroaches, all inform the type of "character" one is trying to portray. The Dialogue and Voiced protagonist in Fallout 4 does not lend itself to 1. making a character "yours" or 2. repeat plays since the dialogue itself is so circular you end up where you started anyway. For myself, and many going into the idea of a then new Bethesda game (where it's overall expected to make a character yours and unique) vs what they delivered for Fallout 4 was a huge change. So I can agree when people say they don't like a voiced protagonist. I can see where they are coming from, if I played Witcher, I didn't "make" the character of Geralt, I am in their shoes and decide their actions and experience their story. Bethesda games have largely been a "blank slate" for character creation, and actions/agency given to the player decide what type of character you are or become, and their is a difference.

[mkborgelt13]

 

 

 

I think it's hypocritical how everyone hates on the voiced protagonist, saying it ruins the game for them. And these are the same people saying the Witcher games are masterpieces and the model to which all other game developers should aspire.

 

Uh... if by "role-playing" you mean pretending things about your character, then, well, the Witcher games are less of a "role-playing" game than FO4. You are named Geralt, you are always male, you have a distinctive voice, you are a bad-ass and ladies' man. In "role-playing" sense this is like being in a straight-jacket.

 

I enjoy the Witcher games, I enjoy FO4. I like using what is given to us about the character to flesh them out on my own. Nora in particular has some interesting lines. She was a sorority party-girl in college, you learn this from talking with the BoS doctor. I imagine she smokes cigarettes from her voice acting, which I think is superb. She has a bit of a mean streak. Nate is an all-around OK guy. I'm fine with this. I enjoy listening to them talk in dialogue, which is in real-time and can feature multiple participants. It's cinematic and "immersive."

 

Contrast this with:

1. Tell me more.

2. OK, let me help you, I'm a great person.

3. Gimme all your caps, loser!

4. [intelligence] You seem ill, let me fix you with stimpack.

5. Let's talk about something else.

 

With a fluid, intuitive dialog that you can walk away from at any time, with professional voice actors, with pacing and so on. It's always cringe-inducing to see games' attempt at strong emotions, here is no exception, but overall I think the dialog is great. Now it's an actual conversation instead of interrogating an NPC with a list of responses.

 

 

I'm going to disagree on your assessment that it's hypocritical to hate on a voice protagonist vs games in which a voiced protagonist is used.

 

Ok it should be prefaced that I have not played the Witcher games, however as you noted you play the character of Geralt. Whom has a set appearance, set of skills, ect. Now let's compare this too Fallout 4's voiced protagonist AND prior Bethesda RPG's: Oblivion, Morrowind, Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas. In the prior games your character is given the bare minimum backstory needed, "You're a prisoner, a Vault Dweller, a Courier, ect" the less is more approach. More freedom to build and design a character in the imagination of the player. In Fallout 4, you have a family, had either military service or was a promising lawyer, was a father/mother, and now has a set voice and it seems set of morals. Even a name of Nate or Nora respectively. All of these facts are -told- to the player, rather then asking the player for the input on their character. Compare the opening of Fallout 3 vs Fallout 4. You start in a vault, how your character reacts to the events happening, your birthday party, how you react to the guests, do you put up with Butch's bullying or not at your party, how you handle taking the G.O.A.T, Do you defend Amata or join in with bullying her with the Tunnel snakes? Finally when your father leaves what do you as the player do? Gun down everyone in the vault? Avoid the guards or kill them? Help Butch or let his Mother die? Or even bully Butch in return? All of these choices for Fallout 3's aprox 1 hr character gen/prologue are the PLAYERS to make, you have agency as the player/character in the story. Compared to Fallout 4's, make your character, talk with the wife, interact with the Vault Tec rep, watch the news, and even finally get into the Vault and get frozen, only to kill about a dozen rad roaches when you thaw out in that same hour or so it will take you. With basically zero agency as the character. Bethesda gave us a preconceived character in Fallout 4 who's only choices are basic stats and physical looks. I'd respect this choice MORE if they didn't half ass it and just said for Fallout 4 "here are the two characters this is their story", The Witcher and Mass Effect you are respectively Geralt/Shepard with a much more narrowly defined "role". Fallout 4 doesn't and so those expecting character creation along the lines of almost every other Bethesda game in their library are likely disappointed in that fact.

 

The fact that I can replay the opening of Fallout 3 and have an experience where I was a "good guy" told Butch off at my party, and didn't let Amata get bullied, and forgave Butch and saved his mom since I wouldn't let someone die just cause they bullied me as a kid, OR I was an "evil SOB" that didn't stick up for myself, joined in bullying Amata trying to get in good graces with Butch, and then when that didn't happen bullied butch and let his mother die to radroaches, all inform the type of "character" one is trying to portray. The Dialogue and Voiced protagonist in Fallout 4 does not lend itself to 1. making a character "yours" or 2. repeat plays since the dialogue itself is so circular you end up where you started anyway. For myself, and many going into the idea of a then new Bethesda game (where it's overall expected to make a character yours and unique) vs what they delivered for Fallout 4 was a huge change. So I can agree when people say they don't like a voiced protagonist. I can see where they are coming from, if I played Witcher, I didn't "make" the character of Geralt, I am in their shoes and decide their actions and experience their story. Bethesda games have largely been a "blank slate" for character creation, and actions/agency given to the player decide what type of character you are or become, and their is a difference.

 

 

That was well thought-out and makes sense. Yeah, I'd have to agree with you on the intro sequence lacking in characterization, and I see where you are coming from. Bethesda tried something new with the VP, I can see how people would get upset if they were expecting a mute "blank slate" character. I do think game developers should be encouraged to try new things, otherwise nothing changes.

 

However, I still find the fanboyism of NV and Witcher hypocritical. People are willing to see only what affirms their opinions.

 

I'm also fed up with the "Meme Team" who are filled in by their surroundings, and endlessly repeat the "Yes/No(Yes)/More Info/Sarcastic Yes" thing. I'll wager you that most of these guys don't give two shits about "role-playing" and just soak up the popular opinions around them.

 

Full disclosure; I never liked the silent protagonist. it was fine in Morrowind, because dialog was text based. But being the only mute person in the game kept reminding me that I was playing a game. it was harder to "get into" the character. Instead of a "person," I felt like a loot collector / dungeon plunderer / generic "adventurer."

 

Fallout 4 shunts a bit of characterization onto the player, using the (scant) background detailing and voice. This takes away the player's agency, as you say, but personally, I found it added a bit of refreshing humanization. And I am really glad they are trying out new things, because I am sick of the same game being re-released since Morrowind.

[mkborgelt13]

I don't hate FO4, although I'm not entirely crazy about it either.

 

That said, IMO it's single biggest flaw, is probably it's biggest, most liked feature, the infernal settlement building. While I don't mind the idea of it, I simply don't care for how the entire game seems to revolve around it. It's too much. It's too much micromanaging every single settlement you choose to build.

 

I would've been far happier with a more scaled back system, with fewer locations to choose from (no more one and 2 man/woman choices), yet have the remaining choices be meatier, with more choices in management than we currently have. This would still allow those who like the idea to continue doing it to their hearts content, while allowing those of us who'd be happier avoiding it altogether to simply play the game without being inundated by it every single time we happen upon a house in the wasteland.

 

I like that. Sometimes I just don't want to build settlements at all. Other times I do it for hours. But the pathfinding tends to conflict with how I design buildings, and the settlers just end up standing close to the outside wall, or on the roof, and doing nothing. Kind of defeats the purpose.

 

For once, I am glad there are so many small or undeveloped settlements, because the new raider gameplay.

 

As I said, I am really glad that the studio is putting in some new ideas. But a bit more emphasis on the narrative, less on the construction, and I think that would make a lot of people happier.

[TummaSuklaa]

It is the internet. If it exists, someone will vocally hate it and provide no constructive feedback.

This right here..

[AnvilOfWar]

 

That was well thought-out and makes sense. Yeah, I'd have to agree with you on the intro sequence lacking in characterization, and I see where you are coming from. Bethesda tried something new with the VP, I can see how people would get upset if they were expecting a mute "blank slate" character. I do think game developers should be encouraged to try new things, otherwise nothing changes.

 

However, I still find the fanboyism of NV and Witcher hypocritical. People are willing to see only what affirms their opinions.

 

I'm also fed up with the "Meme Team" who are filled in by their surroundings, and endlessly repeat the "Yes/No(Yes)/More Info/Sarcastic Yes" thing. I'll wager you that most of these guys don't give two shits about "role-playing" and just soak up the popular opinions around them.

 

Full disclosure; I never liked the silent protagonist. it was fine in Morrowind, because dialog was text based. But being the only mute person in the game kept reminding me that I was playing a game. it was harder to "get into" the character. Instead of a "person," I felt like a loot collector / dungeon plunderer / generic "adventurer."

 

Fallout 4 shunts a bit of characterization onto the player, using the (scant) background detailing and voice. This takes away the player's agency, as you say, but personally, I found it added a bit of refreshing humanization. And I am really glad they are trying out new things, because I am sick of the same game being re-released since Morrowind.

 

I also see the other side as well, I can understand why people liked the voiced protagonist, it requires less "effort" on the part of the player, and for some it may help them with coming to grips with the character.

 

My issue with Fallout 4 is the lack of choice and consequence it's almost impossible to "fail" anything in Fallout 4, (and it should be said many Bethesda games) the fact that they have steam lined the games so much and "handhold" the player is just an issue with more modern games and console games specifically. I'll fully admit that I would classify as a "New Vegas Fanboy" however there are reasons why. In New Vegas there is exactly 1 "essential" character, and that is Yes Man, anyone else, barring children of course (since "omg their killing kids" is a societal hangup rather then a realistic expectation of a game about a post apocalypse of humanity), Obsidian was not afraid to let the player "fail" all of those possible choices have consequences. Fallout 3 and 4, Skyrim ect are so packed full of "story/quest specific" essential characters, that even the possibility of failure doesn't really exist. Fallout 4 had big expectations to live up too, after all it wasn't Bethesda's "freshmen" Fallout game, it's now the "Sophomore" year game. Story wise it didn't seem new "find your son" "find your dad" one of which was more personal for the player (Fallout 3) since the setup for the game had you try and connect with dad and perhaps his reasons for why he left. New Vegas on the other hand, largely makes the motivation of the courier the players. Think about it, why are you going after the chip? Duty to your job? Revenge on the guy that tired to kill you? To ask them "why did you do this to me?" The machinations of the various factions all try to sway the player to their line of thinking/what they want done. There is never a time in New Vegas where "you must do this" comes into play. Fallout 4 on the other hand doesn't allow a "no" all parts of the Dialogue lead to Yes, and sometimes infuriatingly so, given there are several conversations where "no" is even an option but you still are given to do whatever it is.

 

I don't begrudge Fallout 4 for what it is, which is a sandbox FPS shooter/builder, but when you think of what it could have possibly been, coming off the heels of New Vegas it's sad too think that Bethesda was more interested in "spectacle" (Oh look Power armor and a Deathclaw in the first hour and a half! Look at me!) rather then building a world with interesting stories to be had by the player. For me Fallout 4 classifies as a "good game" just not a particularly good Fallout game.

[AGreatWeight]

Admittedly, I haven't read every page of this thread, so apologies if this has already been answered. For a while now, I've been wondering about what happened during development of the game,

and how this impacted the final product that we have; as well as the knock on effect this had regarding the choices Bethesda made for the base game, as well as when it came to the dlc.

For example, the untimely and tragic loss of the amazing concept artist Adam Adamowicz would have reverberated throughout the company, and affected moral of the team who'd just lost someone who was IMHO integral to Bethesda's vision of Fallout.

Also, I've read unsubstantiated claims that the game was originally meant to be released on the previous gen of consoles, but delayed due to unexplained reasons.

Not to mention technical difficulties Bethesda had with the game. I've tried looking into this, as a way of trying to find explanations of why there are parts of the game that feel rushed or underdeveloped, the cut content, etc.

Edited September 9, 2016 by AGreatWeight

[TummaSuklaa]

I'm playing this more than I ever played skyrim.

[mkborgelt13]

 

 

That was well thought-out and makes sense. Yeah, I'd have to agree with you on the intro sequence lacking in characterization, and I see where you are coming from. Bethesda tried something new with the VP, I can see how people would get upset if they were expecting a mute "blank slate" character. I do think game developers should be encouraged to try new things, otherwise nothing changes.

 

However, I still find the fanboyism of NV and Witcher hypocritical. People are willing to see only what affirms their opinions.

 

I'm also fed up with the "Meme Team" who are filled in by their surroundings, and endlessly repeat the "Yes/No(Yes)/More Info/Sarcastic Yes" thing. I'll wager you that most of these guys don't give two shits about "role-playing" and just soak up the popular opinions around them.

 

Full disclosure; I never liked the silent protagonist. it was fine in Morrowind, because dialog was text based. But being the only mute person in the game kept reminding me that I was playing a game. it was harder to "get into" the character. Instead of a "person," I felt like a loot collector / dungeon plunderer / generic "adventurer."

 

Fallout 4 shunts a bit of characterization onto the player, using the (scant) background detailing and voice. This takes away the player's agency, as you say, but personally, I found it added a bit of refreshing humanization. And I am really glad they are trying out new things, because I am sick of the same game being re-released since Morrowind.

 

I also see the other side as well, I can understand why people liked the voiced protagonist, it requires less "effort" on the part of the player, and for some it may help them with coming to grips with the character.

 

My issue with Fallout 4 is the lack of choice and consequence it's almost impossible to "fail" anything in Fallout 4, (and it should be said many Bethesda games) the fact that they have steam lined the games so much and "handhold" the player is just an issue with more modern games and console games specifically. I'll fully admit that I would classify as a "New Vegas Fanboy" however there are reasons why. In New Vegas there is exactly 1 "essential" character, and that is Yes Man, anyone else, barring children of course (since "omg their killing kids" is a societal hangup rather then a realistic expectation of a game about a post apocalypse of humanity), Obsidian was not afraid to let the player "fail" all of those possible choices have consequences. Fallout 3 and 4, Skyrim ect are so packed full of "story/quest specific" essential characters, that even the possibility of failure doesn't really exist. Fallout 4 had big expectations to live up too, after all it wasn't Bethesda's "freshmen" Fallout game, it's now the "Sophomore" year game. Story wise it didn't seem new "find your son" "find your dad" one of which was more personal for the player (Fallout 3) since the setup for the game had you try and connect with dad and perhaps his reasons for why he left. New Vegas on the other hand, largely makes the motivation of the courier the players. Think about it, why are you going after the chip? Duty to your job? Revenge on the guy that tired to kill you? To ask them "why did you do this to me?" The machinations of the various factions all try to sway the player to their line of thinking/what they want done. There is never a time in New Vegas where "you must do this" comes into play. Fallout 4 on the other hand doesn't allow a "no" all parts of the Dialogue lead to Yes, and sometimes infuriatingly so, given there are several conversations where "no" is even an option but you still are given to do whatever it is.

 

I don't begrudge Fallout 4 for what it is, which is a sandbox FPS shooter/builder, but when you think of what it could have possibly been, coming off the heels of New Vegas it's sad too think that Bethesda was more interested in "spectacle" (Oh look Power armor and a Deathclaw in the first hour and a half! Look at me!) rather then building a world with interesting stories to be had by the player. For me Fallout 4 classifies as a "good game" just not a particularly good Fallout game.

 

 

I agree with you, but I guess I am fine with the game as it is. You should try playing the S.T.A.L.K.E.R games, they are pretty good. "quest characters" die all the time, without you even being in the same map, and there is always a way to complete the quest.

And yeah, the intro sequence with PA and deathclaw is annoying. I don't like the Minuteman "laser-musket-13-colonies" theme at all, nor the family oriented plots.

 

 

Admittedly, I haven't read every page of this thread, so apologies if this has already been answered. For a while now, I've been wondering about what happened during development of the game,

and how this impacted the final product that we have; as well as the knock on effect this had regarding the choices Bethesda made for the base game, as well as when it came to the dlc.

For example, the untimely and tragic loss of the amazing concept artist Adam Adamowicz would have reverberated throughout the company, and affected moral of the team who'd just lost someone who was IMHO integral to Bethesda's vision of Fallout.

Also, I've read unsubstantiated claims that the game was originally meant to be released on the previous gen of consoles, but delayed due to unexplained reasons.

Not to mention technical difficulties Bethesda had with the game. I've tried looking into this, as a way of trying to find explanations of why there are parts of the game that feel rushed or underdeveloped, the cut content, etc.

 

How does losing a concept artist affect the development cycle? I think writers are more important. Concept artists just sit back and spew out these half-baked ideas and sloppy art. One of beth's concept artists came up with the idea for a revolver which also has a magazine. I ask you... is this the kind of person we want dictating design choices? No way!

There is enough inspiration to go around in the Real World.

 

I think they came up with the "nif snapping" technology used in equipment upgrades and settlement construction, and focused in on this. Hence all the workshop DLCs.

 

I think the nif snapping is extemely cool, and can't wait to see what they do with it in future titles, but am also hoping it is less of an emphasis. It's a great feature but it does not make a game on its own.

 

Edit: And yeah, I am playing this more than any other Bethesda game, except Oblivion, which was my "first," before I had other games to compare it to.

Edited September 9, 2016 by mkborgelt13

[TummaSuklaa]

Well they should have had it like Morrowind where if you kill an important character, it gives you a doomsday message :P