Those of you who love the game...

[Puddycat]

 

Personally I value the Settlement Building as another major feature added to the franchise should the player want to do it. The more things Bethesda lets you do in the game world, the better, I say.

 

 

 

Oh don't get me wrong... i agree with you there. I was so excited when they announced this feature cause it's just sooo me. But the way it is now, it's just an annoyance. I can't believe that dude at E3 had the cheek to say 'it just works'....how he kept a straight face is beyond me.

 

Maybe that's my problem...i was too excited for it ha, and now i'm just all kinds of disappointed.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Puddycat

[geekminxen]

I really appreciate the discussion here, and the fact that people are staying civil. Thanks for that. :)

 

I think that everyone is sort of crystallizing for me what my problem is with the game-- I play Fallout and TES to learn the world, find out who I want to be within it, learn about the people, and find out What Happens Next in the story. I guess, in summary, I play them for the RPG elements. And has been stated here and elsewhere, FO4 isn't an RPG, despite its marketing claims.

 

I won't clog up the thread by repeating what others have said just so I can add, "Me, too," but yeah, limited dialogue options/flimsy story hook at the beginning/I'm not interested in building settlements for Bethesda or Settler 1, 2, or 3, so...never gonna be my favorite Fallout game, I guess. Sigh.

 

(And I'm always surprised when people say they found NV's environment to be drab or boring-- after green-gray DC, I thought the warm colors and living plants were lovely. But, again, that's just me. :) )

[charwo]

I don't really give a s#*! about interesting environments, I want REALISTIC environments and good storytelling. RADIATION DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY, AND IT DIDN'T WORK THAT WAY IN FALLOUT 1&2. At least NV didn't feel lime a swim in a stinking garbage pile. The desert setting makes sense because New Vegas is actually a desert. Boston's environments don't make sense; the city was completely spared and had more intact resources than Vegas ever did. It should be at least as rebuilt as New Vegas. Nothing in non-secured areas should be left where they were dropped 200 years ago. Nothing interesting has happened in 200 years. It's the theme park version of the wasteland we got in Fallout 3.

 

Now, this game is improved over Fallout 3 in every single way, even if it doesn't hold a candle to NV. The companions are well written, the main quest is actually engaging if you can roleplay and create a backstory around it and the moral dilemmas are if forced at some points, very grey and grey and I have to give Bethesda for a much better storytelling. It's tragic in a logical, f*cked up way. Their world building is garbage and that's supposed to be their strong point. I'd give Fallout 4 vanilla a 6/10 compared with the 3/10 I'd give Fallout 3. I especially like the radiant quests: they make you feel like you're making progress in the world, though I want a permanent ruin clearing mod so at some point, the loot, the radiant quests and the self imposed challenge of pacifying the wasteland will come to an end.

 

That said, it's not Fallout, it's not New Vegas and if I weren't so excited about the upcoming mods I'd have asked for a refund. Bethesda's world building rings false, it doesn't have already lore established weapons and armor, and it just feels grimy and filthy that only makes sense in the years, not decades following the end of civilization. And then there's the dialogue wheel. I think the full dialogue interface is going to be a required mod to actually give the kinds of variety good lines require, in the mods. All of Fallout 4's dialogue paths need to be retooled. I should never be afraid being sarcastic will lock me out of useful information, and frankly some of the sarcastic lines are just being a dick. Plus other speech checks than just speech. This is supposed to be an RPG, sheesh.

[Boombro]

 

(And I'm always surprised when people say they found NV's environment to be drab or boring-- after green-gray DC, I thought the warm colors and living plants were lovely. But, again, that's just me. :) )

They are not talking about the colors, but the world building.

In fo3, you can explore the ruins of D.C city, does it fill the map? No, but it still a great experiences, let not forget the the vaults and prime!

Fo3 also start better, the first time I played it I was impressed, it longer, but it it eases you. And that white flash when you first get out of vault 101 is has that impact.

[Boombro]

 

I don't really give a s*** about interesting environments, I want REALISTIC environments and good storytelling. RADIATION DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY,

Tell that to the people of 50s-60s.

It not real or true because it based on their idea of radiation back in the 50s, not today's.

 

 

Boston's environments don't make sense; the city was completely spared and had more intact resources than Vegas ever did. It should be at least as rebuilt as New Vega

Why everyone think's everything has to be because of the bombs and the blast waves? What about weather, earthquakes and human damage? And the fact no one will fix/clean/use them for 200 years? Do you know what a building looks like after 10 years without any repairs and facing bad, strong weather? Some building in Boston look better than those.

 

If you went southern east, it clear that there was earthquakes, many others areas seems flooded like murk water, another used by animals/monsters, leaks can also case horrible damage.

 

I'm more pissed the paint is not peeling and the everyone has time to board up their houses.

 

Also, New vegas had mr.house to lead the people and build NV again. Boston has no one like that and everyone seems to want to live in the Diamond city anyways.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Boombro

[Warmaker01]

Going into FO4's start, you can't have had a semi-rebuilt Boston. The Commonwealth completely lacked central government nor a core figure to get everyone to work together. There was no military, militia, nor security force under anyone's command to get completely control of Boston, clean it out, and secure it enough to rebuild. The best that was done was the little enclave of Diamond City. Everything else is a disunited mess. Before FO4's start, the closest thing that had any sort of chance to provide security for the Commonwealth as a whole was the Minutemen. But they had huge internal destabilization and once General Becker died, they fell apart in infighting or units simply melting away. Once the Minutemen were gone, no chance of securing the Commonwealth was possible. The Institute was just content murdering people in their sleep or dragging people away in the night. It would only be when the player character comes in that a chance to set things straight comes around. Until then, the Commonwealth was in dire s***.

 

New Vegas was easy to keep secure. It was SMALL, had a key figure to keep it together, and had just enough strength to keep it secure. New Vegas could not expand past its walls. The resources it takes to keep New Vegas in one piece compared to retaking Boston from hordes of Gunners, Raiders, Feral Ghouls, Super Mutants, and later on, Institute raids... It's not feasible. No indigenous group in the Commonwealth had that kind of power. That is why Boston is trash still when FO4 starts.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Warmaker01

[FishBiter]

I run around shooting things, completing quests, grabbing loot, and using the crafting system - these things are all very fun for me in this game; no real debate there, I just know how I feel. If these things aren't fun for you, then unfortunately you're not going to have a lot of fun with this game as the vast majority of the game's content is geared towards the first three of those activities ( just like in Fallout 3, and Fallout NV ). If you're over 10 hours in and nothing is clicking for you, then the game isn't going to get anymore fun for you because by this point you've encountered all the mechanics and systems the game can offer. There's plenty more content, but it all involves doing these few activities ( just like Fallout 3 and Fallout NV ).

 

And that's okay. Not every game is going to be fun for every person.

 

 

PS - Generally, people telling someone why a game is fun has pretty much never made a game more fun for a person who has played it and didn't have fun.

[Mystarria]

What I love about the game?

 

• The exploration factor is really great.
• The world is very well done and encourages wandering off the beaten path.
• The creative aspect of making your own towns is just great. I spend hours on end trying to pretty things up.
• Combat has been greatly improved. VATS is still an effective tool, but real time is much more functional and fun than in previous games.
• While they do encourage you to do the main quest, I'm 120 hours in and haven't even been to Diamond City yet. Side quests, exploration and city building has kept me fully occupied.
• The new power armor makes more sense to me than previous games, although I do wish we could craft our own armor, weapons, and ammo from scratch as well.

 

While no game is perfect (and couldn't possibly be) I'll say this is one of their best. Graphically pleasing, good base systems, very few bugs out of the box. I've only had one crash so far, and I'm going to blame that on me turning on steam overlay. This game has provided a very impressive base to add on to. I know most wouldn't judge a game by this, but being a long time elder scrolls player, I've learned that a good base is imperative for the community to be able to launch off of with incredible mods to extend game-play long term. Just playing around I've already made a list in my head of what mods I'm pretty positive will be put out at some point.

 

I'd list those ideas, but it would be off topic. All I want to say is, when people stop looking for things to find wrong with something, and start seeing everything the game has to offer, it changes everything.

[DesertEvil09]

 

All I want to say is, when people stop looking for things to find wrong with something, and start seeing everything the game has to offer, it changes everything.

Okay, fine, people have done that though, the entire gaming press and the collective hype machine surrounding this game has done nothing but shower this game with compliments and appreciate all that's new and changed for the better and yes, there are very good and well thought out changed things for the better. I didn't expect the perk system to be half as thought out as this one, and it doesn't make me want to lament the longing of skills as much as I thought for example.

 

But if people don't criticize and yes, as bad as a word as it may seem; complain about this game, then Bethesda learns nothing. The industry learns nothing. I'm tired of accepting that if games need to be more accessible, they have to be simple, and people don't need to think a whole lot. That's just nonsense. And I'm tired of the collective fear of people diving into a rich, well written, and character complex building RPG that truly gives you the freedom to be anyone and do anything all because it seems a 'little too complex'

 

Patting this game on the back only serves to be a bit of a circlejerk, we all know what's good, and we all know what's bad, it's just that some people are afraid to hear about what's bad, because they want to have their money well spent or whatever.

 

I don't want to think of this game as bad, it isn't in fact. There's just alot wrong with it from where I'm standing, and it's core values of it being a Fallout game is only the beginning.

 

I just want RPG's to stay RPG's. Not turn into half baked versions of what they used to be. Sorry, but shooting things and having my stories end with one big nuclear explosion doesn't get my rocks off as much as other people do.

[geekminxen]

I run around shooting things, completing quests, grabbing loot, and using the crafting system - these things are all very fun for me in this game; no real debate there, I just know how I feel. If these things aren't fun for you, then unfortunately you're not going to have a lot of fun with this game as the vast majority of the game's content is geared towards the first three of those activities ( just like in Fallout 3, and Fallout NV ). If you're over 10 hours in and nothing is clicking for you, then the game isn't going to get anymore fun for you because by this point you've encountered all the mechanics and systems the game can offer. There's plenty more content, but it all involves doing these few activities ( just like Fallout 3 and Fallout NV ).

 

And that's okay. Not every game is going to be fun for every person.

 

 

PS - Generally, people telling someone why a game is fun has pretty much never made a game more fun for a person who has played it and didn't have fun.

 

Oh, I didn't expect the game to suddenly become more fun because someone shared their opinion of it. I just wanted see it from the perspective of those who love it. Sorry, I thought I stated that earlier.

 

I agree that, on the surface, FO3 and FNV involved shooting things, completing quests, and grabbing loot. Those games just made me care a lot more about the world in which I did those things, and the reasons why I did them. I've been mulling over why I don't care about the people in the Commonwealth as much as I did about those in DC or the Mojave, and really the discussion here is helping clarify that for me.

 

It's not that I hate FO4. I like it well enough to have finished it-- I just expected, from my track record with previous games, to like it more. New Vegas and Fallout 3 are my top two favorite games ever, and I don't think FO4 would make my top 10. That really surprised me, so I threw this topic out for discussion.