Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout 4' started by DirtyOldShoe, Sep 29, 2016.
Unlimited choices folks, have at it.
I'll take the bait and pull out the unpopular opinion. Fallout 4 is a good game. It excels as an open-world shooter with crafting and light RPG elements. It isn't, though, a good RPG or Fallout title. It is embarrassingly bad for a Fallout game, but is still a good game worth playing no more than once.
Oh, your opinion is quite popular on Bethesda.net and most other hives on the internet, not so much here.
It does not excel at anything. It is not a good game, you just haven't realized it yet.
I don't mean any offense, but perhaps your definition of a good game is too restrictive and niche. If it bore a different name, on what grounds would it be a bad game? I thought the combat, crafting, and exploration were all quite fun. As a shooty-crafty-exploration game, where did it fail? Or do you think all games of this kind are inherently terrible?
Fallout 4 is warmed over Fallout and that's still better than 90% of the games on the market.
Then look at this
#1 Fallout NV 95.70 %
#2 Fallout 1 91.94 %
#3 Fallout 2 91.88 %
#4 Fallout 3 82.44 %
#5 Fallout Tactics 81.53 %
#6 Fallout 4 78.15 %
Nuka World 47.70%
Then read this:
Notice I didn't specify which Fallout and look at what comes up
Notice what game isn't indexed by google
Fallout 4 is so bad, it can't even be considered a game.
You have given me a lot to sift through. I'll respond afterwards.
Cool, When your done those check out this:
-Fallout 4 Review
-Super Mutants: An Article on what Bethesda has done with them in Fallout 4
It might give you some insight without me repeating everything all over again.
And later we found out they still make you repeating everything all over again.
Also, don't let other people tell you what a good game is or not.
Just enjoy what you want.
If even Todd Howard came out to admit that they 'kinda' didn't achieve with their Dialog-wheel-abomination what they had in mind ... then you know how much they fucked up on that front to even slightly admit some problem here.
Embarrassingly bad. There are some moments I enjoy, but those moments are hilariously shit OUTSIDE of conversations and settlements, which funny enough, consist of most of the fucking Game world. The things I merely enjoyed was combat, but even so, it's NOTHING compared to NV, especially the gore. The chunks are meatier, but for some reason, the blood looks stale compared to the older gen games. Even with the Bloody Mess perk, using a Deathclaw Gauntlet (which you would expect this fucking thing to make absolute mince-meat out of people) hardly generates any gore. You might get a goofy decapitate, a skull smash here and there, or a sliced/crushed limb, but that's it. No gibbed body, or more than one limb ripped to shreds, it's just kind of bad. That, and the only reason I also find some enjoyment in the game is (Surprise surprise) Mods. That's it. Even then, as soon as my character wants to speak or the story pops up, my immersion is shattered. Only so much mods can do before you eventually have to groan and look slowly back at the mainquest, who is still sitting in it's own shit and waving at you from the corner. guh.
-First video rant only covers how Fallout 4 lacks roleplaying. He even said himself: "It is fun...it's just not a good Fallout game". I agree.
-I agree that the story is shit, but there are other things to consider in a game.
-His idea of a gaming sin is very loose. Some of the sins apply to the whole series. He mostly rags on the RPG elements, which I have already agreed are terrible.
-I agree that Nuka World was terrible. Most of the DLC were. Only Far Harbor has some merit.
-I agree that Fallout 4 has no replay value, but I still had hundreds of hours of fun with the game, which is sufficient for me.
-I thought the gunplay was fine. If you don't like the combat, then yeah, Fallout 4 was probably not a fun experience for you.
-Most big titles nowadays pander to the consoles. Don't blame the game, blame the market. Again, I agree it fails as an RPG.
-Newer subjects are more likely to be headlines. Many would find the classic Fallouts boring.
-Just because it doesn't show up on google based on a vague description, it is bad? I googled "open ended rpg with great story" and Fallout 1 and 2 aren't on the front page. Does that make them bad games?(EDIT: Fallout 2 was #3 on PC Gamers' top RPGs)
I just want you to look at the game for what it is. Not what it could or should be. I agree it is a letdown and fails in every way that a Fallout game should excel at, but why is it such a bad game that you struggle to even call it a video game?
I think your score review is very biased. You take away points for minor things and mostly because of failures in the area of roleplaying. Tell me, do you only play RPG games? Is any other type of game terrible because it isn't a masterful RPG like Fallout 1? It feels like you just want to hate Fallout 4 in every way because it is not Van Buren.
What are you on?
I'm on Fallout.
Sorry, Nuka World was AWESOME!
What was your problem with it?
I didn't like being railroaded into being a bad guy.
I didn't like being forced to use the squirt gun on the Overboss. An alternative would have been nice.
The world felt sparse.
Many lore-breaks such as the Quantum X-01.
The only added settlement was a rehash of Red Rocket. It was literally just another Red Rocket with the same layout and everything.
1. Even if you don't take the Overboss Position, you can finish the quest and explore the park.
2. You can actually defeat the Overboss without the Squirt Gun but I loved the humor of it. It was wacky and set up the park well.
3. It felt like it had more going on than in any part of the main game, I think.
4. Yeah, that sucked but I loved the new info on Nuka Cola.
5. Way too many settlements as is. But YMMV.
I also love the Grilletop grille house.
What is the alternative option?