Comparisons with Skyrim

[Boombro]

No challenge? Did your try different stuff, like only a PA run, only pipe weapons, only traps, only syringe, no chem, no perks, no healing expect by food etc?

[TheOriginalEvilD]

Fo4 map is bigger than fo3, why everyone is talking about Skyrim map?

 

Because they've run out of things to complain about so they turn to comparing it to other games.

[Deleted31005User]

Yeah I'm not going to reply to this thread anymore, its just devolving into a Drama spectacle where people voicing their issues with the game are getting bashed by those that like to place it on a pedestal.

If you like it, then great, so move along and stop going with all the personal attacks and whatnot.

If you do feel like you want to personally attack people and call them whiners and stuff, then clearly that person must have said something that hits home for you, yet you deny hes opinion since your trying way too hard to like the game, hence you attack instead.

 

Its a Bethesda game and the longer time goes on the less impressive and dulled down their games are, but I'm guessing you folks are going to deny that as well...

My God, even if Bethesda would take a huge dump you would still call it glorious and 'DumpOfTheYear!'.

 

I'm out, too many people have their blinders still in front of their eyes.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Guest

[Warmaker01]

Yeah I'm not going to reply to this thread anymore, its just devolving into a Drama spectacle where people voicing their issues with the game are getting bashed by those that like to place it on a pedestal.

If you like it, then great, so move along and stop going with all the personal attacks and whatnot.

If you do feel like you want to personally attack people and call them whiners and stuff, then clearly that person must have said something that hits home for you, yet you deny hes opinion since your trying way too hard to like the game, hence you attack instead.

 

Its a Bethesda game and the longer time goes on the less impressive and dulled down their games are, but I'm guessing you folks are going to deny that as well...

My God, even if Bethesda would take a huge dump you would still call it glorious and 'DumpOfTheYear!'.

 

I'm out, too many people have their blinders still in front of their eyes.

I replied the way I did because your post was full of misinformation. Vanilla FO4 did not do anything of the sort you mentioned with the NPCs and most especially equipment.

 

I said it before around these boards. I like FO4 a lot but I am quite aware it has some glaring issues. NPC variety and NPC equipment variety is NOT one of those issues. I said in my previous reply, it can be improved but the information you put out was wrong.

 

If you can't handle that actual facts even in Vanilla FO4 disprove your misinformation, then I'm sorry.

[Moraelin]

Well, that's my problem too. Everyone is free to like or dislike the game, but it would be nice if the complaints actually made any sense. There seems to be this urge to try to massage it into some kind of "objective" "facts" for why it's TEH WORSTEST GAME EVAR, even if said "facts" are actually just pulled out of the rear end, or don't even make any sense.

 

If you just don't like the story, or find the shooter too fast paced, or whatever, sure, that's subjective stuff and there's no right or wrong there. We can recommend some mod or another, maybe, but sure, you're entitled to that opinion.

 

But making up stuff about what's in the game, or stuff that doesn't even make any sense, that's a whole other thing.

[oldspice2625]

I think all in all, it's a great game: a great generic game, but not a good fallout game.

 

I honestly don't mind the game at all, and it's fun, if you don't think that you're playing a fallout game. If you take it as playing a generic survival game, then you're good to go.

 

There's only two things that really ruffle my feathers about the game and that's the settlement system, that is shoved down your throat and is nigh impossible to get around at the bare minimum creating ONE settlement. One entire faction is around that feature, so you are automatically down to only three factions if you don't like that, which cuts a decent amount of locations and content out of the game right away. They should have never done it, I am glad that they were brave enough to attempt change, because lord knows we would have been whining about "samey" and "just a reboot", so that's good, but I really don't like it. Even the main quest has you do something that involves settlements (You know what i'm talking about having to build).

 

My other beef is the voiced protagonist, and how that feature destroyed the element of genuine choice in the game. You cannot deny it, it's the truth. It costs much more when you have to pay a voice actor good money, and every spoken line spawns more spoken lines if the quest doesn't end in a specific, pigeon holed manner where you are forced to have only one ending to a quest. There are very few quests that I have come across that offer genuine endings that are VERY different from eachother, not just slightly different, but drastically have an effect on something. They DO exist, but in very small doses.

 

A great deal of the quests in Fallout 3, mainly done by BGS, same guys that did this game, offered variable paths to get different outcomes, and you'd know about those outcomes via Three Dog. The voiced protagonist situation greatly reduced the amount of freedom that the developers had, and it's very noticable this time around.

 

The Replicated Man, the situation with Paradise Falls, Oasis, the Violin quest, the quest between the Antagonist and the Mechanist, Andale, Tenpenny Tower, Megaton, The Declaration of Independence, freeing the slaves or helping the slavers at the Lincoln Memorial, many many others too!

 

You genuinely shaped your character and the world around you, and it made things seem more alive than they probably were. The raiders this time around are nice and lively, I will say that I greatly appreciate that and it's a good thing that they did! In fallout 4, I have yet to have that same experience. There are some areas like Covenant and a few other quests where you have two choices to make, but they are very shallow compared to FO3 and NV, especially NV.

 

Hell, in the other two titles, you could gank the people that helped you right out of the gate in Goodsprings and Vault 101. You just can't do that in this game. You can't, no matter how hard you try. And if you don't like the voiced protag, even mods can't help, because the game was designed around it, so the shallow choices and lack of variety is always going to be there.

 

So two things that I don't like are the two things that are always noticable, HAHA!

 

and... I can STILL find ways to have fun in the game. I did find it kind of retarded though, how there was an NPC in a quest that said, "I thought that you would be more armed".... when I was in full Mark VI X01, with 4k ammo for the energy weapons I had, and over 30 mini nukes and 200 missiles... what the hell more did he want? :P Stupid s#*! like that can ruin the moment, but not the game for me.

 

I think it's a good game, and I think they'll learn from this, but this is not a good fallout game, it's a crappy fallout game. It's a GOOD open world shooter game though, and I suppose that's enough for me for now. Hopefully next time will be better.

 

Settlements and voiced protag meant that they needed to HEAVILY rely on radiant quests which are shallow, boring, add nothing to the story, and are useless IMHO. You can't honestly say that radiant quests are GOOD things, can you?

[Moraelin]

 

Fo4 map is bigger than fo3, why everyone is talking about Skyrim map?

Because they've run out of things to complain about so they turn to comparing it to other games.

 

I'm ok even with that, since in the end one does have a choice about whether to buy game X or game Y.

 

But the comparison still has to make some sense.

 

Having some big splotches of empty map is hardly even making sense as a criterion. But hey, even that I suppose makes some sense if one considers it great gaming to just run along some snow with not even many trees or anything, or just to run around a mountain.

 

But then come the supposed comparisons that don't even make any sense, because either they're flat out wrong about FO4, or Skyrim does the exact same anyway. Or both.

 

WTH of a comparison is it to complain that Raiders mostly get low end equipment, when Skyrim did the exact same thing with its bandits anyway, for example? It's like saying that cats are better than dogs, because cats have tails.

[Moraelin]

I think all in all, it's a great game: a great generic game, but not a good fallout game.

 

I honestly don't mind the game at all, and it's fun, if you don't think that you're playing a fallout game. If you take it as playing a generic survival game, then you're good to go.

Hmm, well, considering that past games included Fallout Tactics or Fallout BOS, I'm not entirely sure exactly what criterion would say that you're not playing a Fallout game. Maybe someone can explain that to me.

 

Seems to me like if it says Fallout on the box, and it's set in the Fallout universe, then it is Fallout. It may be a DIFFERENT Fallout game, and yes it is, and some of the changes may be less than inspired, so to speak, but it's a Fallout game just the same.

 

There's only two things that really ruffle my feathers about the game and that's the settlement system, that is shoved down your throat and is nigh impossible to get around at the bare minimum creating ONE settlement. One entire faction is around that feature, so you are automatically down to only three factions if you don't like that, which cuts a decent amount of locations and content out of the game right away. They should have never done it, I am glad that they were brave enough to attempt change, because lord knows we would have been whining about "samey" and "just a reboot", so that's good, but I really don't like it. Even the main quest has you do something that involves settlements (You know what i'm talking about having to build).

Still not sure why that's a problem, though. You CAN finish the game even without ever going to Concord, so basically even without ever building even beds in Sanctuary Hills.

 

Sure, then you won't activate the Minutemen, but that's hardly essential. You only need them if you want to stomp the Institute with the help of the Minutemen, and really, all you get different there (other than having to have a number of settlements) are two combat quests at the Castle, and a sewer crawl. That's it.

 

And you can still do almost all locations in the game anyway, if you want to stomp raiders and get magazines and bobbleheads.

 

All things considered, if you hate building, I don't think it's that bad a tradeoff.

[oldspice2625]

That's stupid to complain about, because it makes sense for raiders to have crap gear, except for the leaders and lieutenants and what have you.

 

I just wish they focused on the RPG elements that were in place in all of the games, rather than remove them for the sake of getting shooter fans back to the shoot shoot shoot 'em up stuff quicker.

 

SPECIAL means nothing in the game, skills don't even exist, and it's back to a random chance to succeed in a speech check (I don't totally hate that, but it's kind of annoying when I have 19 Charisma to STILL be able to FAIL the check on some instances).

 

It's a very shallow RPG when taken into comparison with it's predecessors in the fallout franchise, that much, no question no debate.

 

But it's a fun little game to occupy the time. I'm happy that I bought it, and am getting some enjoyment out of it. I have to be careful not to do quests for other factions, because that's the only realistic replay value this game has, so I have to be careful not to hear what the NPCs have to say, and quests, etc... which is kind of sad, since I can't do an evil character, or a neutral character :tongue:.

 

Also, I don't included fallout tactics and fallout brotherhood of steel, since I haven't played those titles, and it seems everyone universally dislikes FO BOS, so I'm not sure what the point of that is, since it's debated whether or not FO BOS is cannon or not by the community.

Edited January 14, 2016 by oldspice2625

[Moraelin]

Well, ok, I'm still not sure why they removed the skills. Seems a bit of an over-simplification.

 

That said, what you describe about charisma doesn't seem normal. You should auto-pass all charisma checks if you have 10 charisma or above. Being able to fail at 19 charisma sounds like something's going awfully wrong in your game.