Fallout 4 Review - Post-Apocalyptic Warlord Simulator 2287

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

If you hated the direction Fallout 3 went, then I wouldn't even bother. Just go No Mutants Allowed and grumble with the other people who have been left behind.

That was rude. We liked New Vegas, why can't we have more of that?

I sometimes wonder on which side those of us that don't think that F3 was shitty, but still prefer NV approach, were supposed to be in that conflict.

OT: What about the voice acting on NPCs behalf? Do you still hear about 3 same guys throughout the game?

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I'd just like to say that I liked New Vegas for it's writing (DLC as well was top-notch), and Fallout 3 for it's atmosphere...for the first few hours before you reached Rivet City.

I get the feeling I'd enjoy this for a few hours but find the rest pretty insubstantial, especially in a year that has been full of sandboxes.

Question though: Based on rumours that a lot of the minor quests are just "go here, kill this/find this/deliver this", how repetitive do they get, and are comparisons to Far Cry fair based on the heavier emphasis on FPS combat now?

Also, have they made melee combat any more fun? I always felt that outside of stealth, melee combat was pretty boring in NV/3. I suppose I can also extend it to other alternative approaches like stealth and whatnot? How do they feel this time around?

 

[mysecondlife]

Hi Conrad. I hope you can get to this comment. As someone who never played a Fallout game, would you say Fallout 4 is a good entry point if I could only play one in the series?

Look, I know I am not Conrad, but if you'll allow me, I'd say start with New Vegas. Parts 1 & 2, according to some people, did not age well, while F3 and (it seems so) F4 really lack in actual role-playing aspect.

NV, however, in my humble opinion, strikes a rather nice balance betwen being a good RPG and having relatively acceptable gameplay.

Your input is just as welcome. Thanks.

 

[RebornKusabi]

Hi Conrad. I hope you can get to this comment. As someone who never played a Fallout game, would you say Fallout 4 is a good entry point if I could only play one in the series?

Look, I know I am not Conrad, but if you'll allow me, I'd say start with New Vegas. Parts 1 & 2, according to some people, did not age well, while F3 and (it seems so) F4 really lack in actual role-playing aspect.

NV, however, in my humble opinion, strikes a rather nice balance betwen being a good RPG and having relatively acceptable gameplay.

Your input is just as welcome. Thanks.

Yeah I haven't played 4 yet, but I'm in agreement- New Vegas has aged beautifully.

I've played all of the Fallout's. Including Tactics and BoS. They all have their strengths and weaknesses but I honestly don't have any negatives for New Vegas. 1 is super short and easily broken(both balance and gameplay wise), 2 is brutal in the opening hours (disregarding the hell run to get power armor early) and then becomes an interesting grander section of Fallout canon, 3 has aged poorly unmodded (although modded, it's a strong game still) and it runs like utter f***s**t on PS3 and Windows 10. New Vegas has the best of everything. It has performance issue too but they're easily negated and with mods, New Vegas becomes an amazing bridge to 4 in a way, and 4 does sort of feel tonally like a step backwards. Again, haven't played it.

 

[JET1971]

I love seeing fans of FO1 and 2 claim FO3 isn't good because it was made by Bethesda and that FNV is far superior in every way. The whole faction thing everyone claims is great? Only 2 of the factions really matter, all the rest are just there. Doing faction quests can break quests for another faction because Obsidian reused way too many locations and NPC's *Cough Motor Runner Cough*. It really could've been great but the whole faction system was lackluster and not well planned and even poorly done when BOS is there but doesn't make any difference in the game and felt like they were included to make fans happy. Great Khans? Boomers? waste of time doing anything for them because they don't really affect the main story in any meaningful way. Powder gangers? More nuisance than anything and have no place at all in the main story ontop of whatever Obsidian was doing with them they obviously only did half of it leaving them as a footnote in the Mojave.

Then you have the Mojave itself, the whole bottom of the map is a waste of time to explore because there's nothing down there. The road to the Boomers all the way to the other side of the map is the same as the bottom, don't bother with that area because there's no point. The empty space between settlements? A few ants or radscorpions to keep you interested otherwise it's boring.

I love FNV but it's not any better than FO3, it has it's own unique problems and a story that really isn't any better if you are not a fanboy of FO1/2 and hate Bethesda for buying the IP and see it objectively for what it is.

 

[Kyogissun]

I love FNV but it's not any better than FO3, it has it's own unique problems and a story that really isn't any better if you are not a fanboy of FO1/2 and hate Bethesda for buying the IP and see it objectively for what it is.

Having been exposed to Fallout 1 and 2, I've been aware of the drastic changes between 3 and NV and I understand the frustrations the hardcore fans have with it but... I'm entirely in agreement with this. A better direction would be smashing the best parts of 3 and NV together, building upon what they did right and adding even more roleplaying options and depth. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case with 4.

However, every review or opinion about that game from some who HAS played it that isn't composed of still angry fans of 1, 2 and Tactics (I'M NOT HATING ON YOU, I'm purely stating a factor of character to the individuals I'm speaking about) or some chucklefuck who hasn't actually got their hands on it and is making a judgement from afar (Which I'm also respecting as a completely legitimate decision, I'm just not respecting their hostility to more passive/laidback fans like myself who want to play the game -and- criticize/analyze its issues at the same time) seems to indicate the same thing: The fun factor is there and if you enjoyed 3 and NV, you'll enjoy this too but probably have problems with the streamlining changes.

My friend voted with his wallet for me, him and another friend, so it's something we can't back out on now. However, I can say that this is going to make me significantly cautious when it comes to the next release. I was placing some faith in Bethesda after FONV and hoping they would take what people praised and put it into FO4, but clearly that is not the case and I will be voicing my discontent. Still, it's good to hear that the game does still have a solid fun factor... Unfortunate that it appears to be at the cost of more streamlining but then again, replacements have come out for the series at this point haven't they? We got Wasteland 2 after all, I don't see why Wasteland 3 isn't a possibility now.

 

[mysecondlife]

Hi Conrad. I hope you can get to this comment. As someone who never played a Fallout game, would you say Fallout 4 is a good entry point if I could only play one in the series?

Look, I know I am not Conrad, but if you'll allow me, I'd say start with New Vegas. Parts 1 & 2, according to some people, did not age well, while F3 and (it seems so) F4 really lack in actual role-playing aspect.

NV, however, in my humble opinion, strikes a rather nice balance betwen being a good RPG and having relatively acceptable gameplay.

Your input is just as welcome. Thanks.

Yeah I haven't played 4 yet, but I'm in agreement- New Vegas has aged beautifully.

I've played all of the Fallout's. Including Tactics and BoS. They all have their strengths and weaknesses but I honestly don't have any negatives for New Vegas. 1 is super short and easily broken(both balance and gameplay wise), 2 is brutal in the opening hours (disregarding the hell run to get power armor early) and then becomes an interesting grander section of Fallout canon, 3 has aged poorly unmodded (although modded, it's a strong game still) and it runs like utter f***s**t on PS3 and Windows 10. New Vegas has the best of everything. It has performance issue too but they're easily negated and with mods, New Vegas becomes an amazing bridge to 4 in a way, and 4 does sort of feel tonally like a step backwards. Again, haven't played it.

I'll make sure to get New Vegas if its on sale. Thanks for your input.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

My favorite thing with all this Fallout coverage is the impotent anger from fans of 1 and 2 about the evolution of their favorite game series. You guys lost, more people love the new direction and the game series will continue that way. Give it up, move on to something you enjoy.

It's like No Mutants Allowed actually has decided to move here for some reason, jeez.

 

[Karadalis]

What surprises me is that bethesda is cutting back on what are their games strongest assets.. big open worlds with lots of space to put stuff in by modders.

Making the map smaller seems to be a bad decision in my eyes since everything else about bethesda games is just so mediocre at best. Mediocre writing, mediocre UI, mediocre gameplay, mediocre presentation...

If you leave out the big vast open world bethesda games barely manage to scrape along the average score.

Yet they decided to cut back on the size of the map making it the "smallest" bethesda has made for one of their open world games.

Also the player character having such an established background and his own voice sits well with me. Its limiting, it takes away player choice from the get go, it makes replaying even less attractive then it was in fallout 3 with your "follow daddy" plotline. Its also disheartening that the lazyconversation wheel makes the conversations mean a whole lot less since you dont seem to influence things through talking anymore much. Not to mention these conversation wheels are simply a method on not having to hire good writers. Aparantly its easier to find voice actors then it is to find a decent writer.

Bethesdas fascination with "simplyfying" their games is worrysome because for them it seems symplyfying only means ripping stuff out and replacing it with a lazy half assed solution or outright ripping it out without putting even said half assed lazy replacements in.

As for the bugs that in the game, they sound like the good ol gambryo bugs that never have been fixed because bethesda once more cant be arsed to do so. They never got pathing down very well and from time to time the engine will simple brig itselfe leading to hilarious and sometimes outweirding results.

Whats more important with bethesda games are plot breaking bugs though. I still remember having to reload a day old savegame in skyrim because a certain plot NPC wouldnt open the plot locked door to his room because a script didnt fire correctly.

Anyways to me based on this review it seems that bethesdas mediocrety as a Game developer is showing through more and more blatantly and that it seems that this is the best they can deliver on nowadays

No one really expected a masterpiece, but it seems that bethesda is dialing down on what makes their games enjoyable and that has me worried for the future.

The next skyrim or fallout could be very well just a bioshock with a small "open" world... atleast this seems to be where we are headed.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Disappointingly high final score for a disappointingly lacking final product(I've seen the leaks).

Even on a scale from 7 to 10, Fallout 4 is a 6 at best.

Same. It's a pretty lackluster game. Map is somehow smaller than Fallout 3 and just as empty. Gunplay is rather subpar. RPG mechanics seem like last minute additions hastily shoved in there. The real dealbreaker is how awful the story and characters are. It's just so laughably bad, especially the main story's ending.

That's not even mentioning the bugs and poor performance on some platforms. And yet people will gobble it up and when confronted with something bad they'll state "mods will fix it". They better hope they don't have to pay for them too.

Oh, and just like Fallout 3 before it, the ending is only influenced by a binary choice you make at the very end of the game. No nuance, no taking accordance of your previous choices in the story, just ending A or ending B. Just as bad as Mass Effect, but at least this didn't have a whole trinity of choice-making to ignore.

Fallout 4's map is roughly twice the size of Fallout 3. Where are you getting your info?

 

[Akjosch]

I'm referring to the idea of the player performing essentially the role of a pimp by making it a commercial aspect of settlements built by the player. It's just a step I can't see any game taking.

What about Tropico 2 then?

I've not played it, so I can't speak to how it works. That said, fair enough, there are going to be some games that can get away with it. Tropico is fairly niche, though. Something in the AAA space such as Fallout represents a much more significant risk, the kind that makes satisfying the likely small user base that really wants to do that seem unappealing.

Not like that's a big deal anyway. It's a Bethesda game, we'll just mod in additional jobs for the settlers ourselves.

 

[Frankster]

Aw :/ Even though I've long maintained you gotta wait till mods are here before beth games become truly awesome... I was still bitterly disappointed to hear confirmation on the general streamlining of the game (I hadn't been keeping up with specifics of Fo4 so yes, this was new to me), as well as dialogue choices and a repeat of the meh fo3 ending style. That SPECIAL is now pointless is also meh.

Still it's not all bad news, the crafting system looks pretty sweet, and even though I've already done settlement building in fo3/NV via mods it seems the system in Fo4 is pretty robust enough not to be a disposable gimmick which was something I initially feared.

Anyways dunno if Ill be picking this up yet, feel Id be much better off waiting for modders to work their magic, with a mod to enhance the "rpgness" and another mod like new vegas nevada nights on top of it... Fo4 could be a totally different game to its vanilla form, like other beth games before it. Yeah if my willpower doesn't buckle, Ill try to hold my horses on this one.

Edit: My willpower buckled, ended up getting it. What pushed it for me is that apparently bolt actions are awesome and have bayonets. Fuckin' bayonets!
Downloading atm, will see how it goes.

 

[ShakerSilver]

Fallout 4's map is roughly twice the size of Fallout 3. Where are you getting your info?

Last week some leaked footage came out that had a player starting from the Northwest corner of the map and sprinting towards the Southeast corner. It took them 11 minutes without any stops and little harm befalling them (mostly because they passed through a lot of nothing). I'm not exactly sure about Fallout 3, but I know that another person attempted the same with New Vegas (installing a sprinting mod and putting on god mode so they didn't die) and it took them 23 minutes. I also recall that Skyrim takes about 30 mins to cross the map.

I know it's not a completely accurate metric, but after seeing a lot of its gameplay I can say that it does give the impression of being rather smaller than Bethesda's previous games.

 

[urishima]

Aparantly its easier to find voice actors then it is to find a decent writer.

You DO realize that the VAs are just saying what the writers tell them to... right? Even with a conversation wheel, you still have writers writing the lines that the VAs say.

 

[DayDark]

Fallout 4 Review - Post-Apocalyptic Warlord Simulator 2287

Fallout 4 has some concessions to make a more accessible game, but the wasteland is as alluring as ever.

Read Full Article

Thanks for the review, I can't wait to play it!

 

[Broslinger]

So this is worse than Dragon Age 2? Because that got 5 out of 5 stars.

 

[Lazule]

I was disappointed. They rushed it... Unlike Fallout 3.

Power Armor feels great through.

Still the best Fallout story wise is New Vegas, seriously but the full version of that one, play on Hardcore mode and mod it a little you won't be disappointed.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Fallout 4's map is roughly twice the size of Fallout 3. Where are you getting your info?

Last week some leaked footage came out that had a player starting from the Northwest corner of the map and sprinting towards the Southeast corner. It took them 11 minutes without any stops and little harm befalling them (mostly because they passed through a lot of nothing). I'm not exactly sure about Fallout 3, but I know that another person attempted the same with New Vegas (installing a sprinting mod and putting on god mode so they didn't die) and it took them 23 minutes. I also recall that Skyrim takes about 30 mins to cross the map.

I know it's not a completely accurate metric, but after seeing a lot of its gameplay I can say that it does give the impression of being rather smaller than Bethesda's previous games.

This is my source:

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/104775/20151109/how-big-is-fallout-4s-map-we-walk-from-one-end-to-the-other.htm

I've been playing it myself but haven't explored it enough to judge for myself.

BTW, I'm not super happy with a lot of it now that I'm playing and the graphics really are below average as people have been saying. Most of all I hate the new dialogue option. I kind of regret buying it.

 

[RedRockRun]

It's a game for casuals, and I've never been more sincere.