I'm Really Losing Interest - Is this game even worth finishing?

[Nebrule]

 

I had to go back and look over FO3's side quests and towns after our earlier discussion. I personally liked NV more but wanted to compare Bethesda to itself. After looking it over and remembering my experience, FO4 has very little content that is unrelated to the main plot or factions. In FO3 exploring was exciting as the world was alive and dark humor was everywhere, not just on terminals or notes.

 

Rivet City, Tenpenny Tower, Canterbury Commons, The Underworld, Little Lamplight, Oasis, Paradise Falls, the Lincoln Memorial, Girdershade, Arefu, Big Town, Andale and the Republic of Dave. A lot more too.

 

You can still explore in FO4 but there aren't really places to go and people to see, save very few that feel fitting in a Fallout Wasteland: USS Constitution, Covenant(related to plot but, oh well) and Silver Shroud, I thinks that's about it...

 

The settlements we build don't have character, stories, dialogue, quests. No Republic of Dave ballot box, Andale cannibals, Little Lamplight kids, Canterbury Commons AntAgonizer(lol), etc. Those quests and settlements had humor, personality, it was the reason I played the game. This game is a complete departure in it's current state.

 

...yep, you nailed it with that. FO4 is completely gutted in comparison. What pisses me off is that there's no excuse, after the success of all those previous titles Bethesda has more f'n money than god, and they act like a bunch of fratboys on a bender the night before the final exam and deliver this sh!t. There was no rush, they had all the time in the world. This time last year, people still had dates as far out as 2017 for FO4's release. It's almost like they got a beta up and runnin, then just decided it was good enough.

[Nebrule]

I think you have, in those reviews, a lot of people who don't focus on what many of us are picking up on. I think they just roll with the game like other games. Maybe they are really loving the settlement aspect or something. But it really is quite different. I am astounded by how different it is from skyrim and FO3. I was not even a huge fan of FO3 but compared to this, it's a lot better. Such a shame they are going down this path, copying companies like BW, who have made RPGs into a joke.

 

yeah, the problem is that A.) main stream reviews are paid off and B.) your average gamers today are more entertained by geeked up, hyper paced mindless action than any type of slower paced story driven immersion... and as I think we've all noticed over the past couple years, that is effecting the style and quality of games being developed. As I pointed out in a previous post, this is excatly whats been happening to the media arts over the past 20 or so years... first music, then televison, film and now games. Replacing intrinsic artistic merit with cheaper, quicker, souless eye candy.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Nebrule

[bori85]

It seems each time a new Bethesda game is released the community is faced with threads like this. Identical complaints of a scaled-down universe and lack of personality, streamlining of RPG elements, and so on. Not that all of these are invalid, but nonetheless, I imagine you'll all get over it when the CK comes out. Or, as usual, you'll continue finding something to complain about and fail to appreciate (inevitable) change. Is Bethesda on a slow descent into action gaming? I can't say, because I enjoy FO4 despite the improvements to non-rpg gameplay, and can maintain my imagination and immersion even though I can't spend skill points.

 

Really the only upsetting thing here is people claiming FO3 was actually better. That's almost unbelievable. It's usually difficult for me to find anyone who thinks that game is worth it's weight in sand. A small map of an empty city you're forced to engage in almost entirely in a barren and uninteresting underground, with startlingly few side quests and no factions outside of an entirely linear main questline, with dots of small, forgettable, bland settlements and characters. Really, at the very least, let's admit FO4 has improved since then. There is undeniably an atmosphere to the Commonwealth. It's the violent, personified urban warzone that the Capital Wasteland should have been. Running towards the safe-zone signs of Diamond City while being chased by bullet-dodging ferals to get roped in by Piper was a much more charming experience than walking out of a grey subway full of bullet-sponge ghouls to find some mutants with rocket launchers and a city of ghouls that offer two quests and a few dialog options that involve asking profuse questions about their personal lives.

 

Ultimately, if you think FO4 is lacking on content, you're not looking. I'm at 125 hours (no fast travelling) and have hardly touched radiant questlines yet. Read a few terminals, talk to people. There's a lot going on in the Commonwealth these days.

[Boombro]

It seems each time a new Bethesda game is released the community is faced with threads like this. Identical complaints of a scaled-down universe and lack of personality, streamlining of RPG elements, and so on. Not that all of these are invalid, but nonetheless, I imagine you'll all get over it when the CK comes out. Or, as usual, you'll continue finding something to complain about and fail to appreciate (inevitable) change. Is Bethesda on a slow descent into action gaming? I can't say, because I enjoy FO4 despite the improvements to non-rpg gameplay, and can maintain my imagination and immersion even though I can't spend skill points.

 

Really the only upsetting thing here is people claiming FO3 was actually better. That's almost unbelievable. It's usually difficult for me to find anyone who thinks that game is worth it's weight in sand. A small map of an empty city you're forced to engage in almost entirely in a barren and uninteresting underground, with startlingly few side quests and no factions outside of an entirely linear main questline, with dots of small, forgettable, bland settlements and characters. Really, at the very least, let's admit FO4 has improved since then. There is undeniably an atmosphere to the Commonwealth. It's the violent, personified urban warzone that the Capital Wasteland should have been. Running towards the safe-zone signs of Diamond City while being chased by bullet-dodging ferals to get roped in by Piper was a much more charming experience than walking out of a grey subway full of bullet-sponge ghouls to find some mutants with rocket launchers and a city of ghouls that offer two quests and a few dialog options that involve asking profuse questions about their personal lives.

 

Ultimately, if you think FO4 is lacking on content, you're not looking. I'm at 125 hours (no fast travelling) and have hardly touched radiant questlines yet. Read a few terminals, talk to people. There's a lot going on in the Commonwealth these days.

The quests my friends, the quests.

They had evil options and were longer.

 

 

I wonder what morrowind players said when faced with oblivion.

Oblivion was an amazingly HUGE downgrade compared to morrowind. So vastly different it a wonder two are of the same core team.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Boombro

[Nebrule]

Really the only upsetting thing here is people claiming FO3 was actually better. That's almost unbelievable. It's usually difficult for me to find anyone who thinks that game is worth it's weight in sand. A small map of an empty city you're forced to engage in almost entirely in a barren and uninteresting underground, with startlingly few side quests and no factions outside of an entirely linear main questline, with dots of small, forgettable, bland settlements and characters. Really, at the very least, let's admit FO4 has improved since then. There is undeniably an atmosphere to the Commonwealth. It's the violent, personified urban warzone that the Capital Wasteland should have been. Running towards the safe-zone signs of Diamond City while being chased by bullet-dodging ferals to get roped in by Piper was a much more charming experience than walking out of a grey subway full of bullet-sponge ghouls to find some mutants with rocket launchers and a city of ghouls that offer two quests and a few dialog options that involve asking profuse questions about their personal lives.

 

Ultimately, if you think FO4 is lacking on content, you're not looking. I'm at 125 hours (no fast travelling) and have hardly touched radiant questlines yet. Read a few terminals, talk to people. There's a lot going on in the Commonwealth these days.

 

...wow, what planet are you on? Is this opposite day? I mean to each their own, but I think you're in a very small minority with that perspective... or you never really played or completed FO3.

[Boombro]

 

...wow, what planet are you on? Is this opposite day?

He is right you know.

 

Fallout has fewer quests and it main quest line is more linear, with two main factions that you don't really join (BoS, EC) and one with pretty much just one quest (?) the map pretty much as empty too with less interesting locations (not counting cities.) every subway looks the same, every house looks pretty much the same etc

 

Fo3 has better quests, better RPG, npcs and vaults. And that true, but in the other areas, fo4 is better.

[spirited123]

For years people have complained about the dumbing down of Bethesda games. And its never really bothered me. I always understood the complaints, and even agreed with them at times, but the games were so magnificent in other areas that it didn't really affect me. The world(s) just pulled me in.

 

Fallout 4 is the first time where I've felt the sting. The shallowness of the rpg elements are too great to ignore, it permeates throughout the game and I can't escape it. Every time I interact with another npc its there, a constant reminder that the guy I created is a stranger to me, doing things and saying things I didn't want him to say and do. I have no control over this guy, and I have no emotional attachment to him. The combat is great. but it isn't enough to cover up this games shortcomings. This is the weakest Bethesda game I've played, it doesn't have its own idenity because ot borrows so many ideas from other games. If I want to play Borderlands, or Rust, or Dragon Age, I'll play those games because they do what they do much better than Bethesda ever could manage.

 

I play Bethesda games because they're Bethesda games, but when they stop being Bethesda games there goes any reason I have for playing them. Blizzard have got the whole 'copy a feature from other games and make it work in ours' thing down, thats what they exel at and they've been doing it for years. Bethesda, you are not Blizzard. You can't do what Blizzard does, so just stick to your strengths. Which is making Bethesda games.

[starlitegirl]

It seems each time a new Bethesda game is released the community is faced with threads like this. Identical complaints of a scaled-down universe and lack of personality, streamlining of RPG elements, and so on. Not that all of these are invalid, but nonetheless, I imagine you'll all get over it when the CK comes out. Or, as usual, you'll continue finding something to complain about and fail to appreciate (inevitable) change. Is Bethesda on a slow descent into action gaming? I can't say, because I enjoy FO4 despite the improvements to non-rpg gameplay, and can maintain my imagination and immersion even though I can't spend skill points.

 

Really the only upsetting thing here is people claiming FO3 was actually better. That's almost unbelievable. It's usually difficult for me to find anyone who thinks that game is worth it's weight in sand. A small map of an empty city you're forced to engage in almost entirely in a barren and uninteresting underground, with startlingly few side quests and no factions outside of an entirely linear main questline, with dots of small, forgettable, bland settlements and characters. Really, at the very least, let's admit FO4 has improved since then. There is undeniably an atmosphere to the Commonwealth. It's the violent, personified urban warzone that the Capital Wasteland should have been. Running towards the safe-zone signs of Diamond City while being chased by bullet-dodging ferals to get roped in by Piper was a much more charming experience than walking out of a grey subway full of bullet-sponge ghouls to find some mutants with rocket launchers and a city of ghouls that offer two quests and a few dialog options that involve asking profuse questions about their personal lives.

 

Ultimately, if you think FO4 is lacking on content, you're not looking. I'm at 125 hours (no fast travelling) and have hardly touched radiant questlines yet. Read a few terminals, talk to people. There's a lot going on in the Commonwealth these days.

 

Unless the mods can change the story so that they remove the forced bleak endings and so that I can finish all the quest lines there is no way a mod can fix this.

 

I complain not because I want to but because the game at the end of it and as the ending approached, generally brought me to feeling horrible which I wasn't feeling before that. I was enjoying myself and adventuring and then I meet father and that whole experience sucked considering I didn't even invest all that much in the whole chasing my son thing. But still, it felt bad. Then I have to pick sides. There is no way to get around this. I have gone back and started new games feeling good about them but as I move forward on the quests I realize I will eventually meet father and feel badly and then have to make a choice of who to side with so I can get that miserable ending. I cannot stress enough how much I hate that. While I don't expect or need to be the hero, I'm really tired of gaming companies going for downer endings and especially when they do it by locking you out of all the other factions and quest lines. To me that feels bad.

 

I want to go back and play it again and to have fun but I know I'm going to meet father and want to punch him in the face. I know I will have to pick a side. It's disheartening. It ruins my mood knowing what is to come because I do immerse myself in a story. I don't run around ignorant of what is happening because the landscape looks good. Oh well, I guess that's on me.

[CalibanX]

Considering that 90% of Fallout games are GUNS. It's especially important that the world be as varied and engaging as possible. In Skyrim, I replayed that game a ridiculous number of times because it allowed me to make so many different kinds of characters. In Fallout, every build that isn't melee is going to be 90% GUNS. So making a new character doesn't feel much different from your previous one.

The monolythic wasteland theme needs to be broken up into something visualy different in order to make exploration feel at least a little more engaging. The only time you leave the wasteland enviornment in FO4 is the Glowing Sea and the Institute. But you can't get to the Instititue easily and the Glowing Sea looks great but is very empty. The world here just feels more static and empty and the singular mechanic of guns makes multiple playthroughs feel repetitive. Not sure how mods are going to fix this.

Edited December 19, 2015 by CalibanX

[Boombro]

For years people have complained about the dumbing down of Bethesda games. And its never really bothered me. I always understood the complaints, and even agreed with them at times, but the games were so magnificent in other areas that it didn't really affect me. The world(s) just pulled me in.

 

Fallout 4 is the first time where I've felt the sting. The shallowness of the rpg elements are too great to ignore, it permeates throughout the game and I can't escape it. Every time I interact with another npc its there, a constant reminder that the guy I created is a stranger to me, doing things and saying things I didn't want him to say and do. I have no control over this guy, and I have no emotional attachment to him. The combat is great. but it isn't enough to cover up this games shortcomings. This is the weakest Bethesda game I've played, it doesn't have its own idenity because ot borrows so many ideas from other games. If I want to play Borderlands, or Rust, or Dragon Age, I'll play those games because they do what they do much better than Bethesda ever could manage.

 

I play Bethesda games because they're Bethesda games, but when they stop being Bethesda games there goes any reason I have for playing them. Blizzard have got the whole 'copy a feature from other games and make it work in ours' thing down, thats what they exel at and they've been doing it for years. Bethesda, you are not Blizzard. You can't do what Blizzard does, so just stick to your strengths. Which is making Bethesda games.

I agree. Beth never made AAA games, the animation was lacking, the writing was lacking, the people always bat s#*! ugly and the games were buggy as always. But a Beth game was a Beth game, you can have a lot of fun and play days non stop expect if it crashes. That means something was done right about the game after all.

 

You know when a dev makes a follow up to game series and the game is so odd or/and bad the fans don't count it exists, then another one comes up and it resumed it goodness?

Let hope this is the case with this one.