Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout 4' started by CT Phipps, Nov 25, 2017.
A game which you view as shallow gets a 6 or 7?
Remind me why you don't work for IGN again.
Just wait for a while longer until the shiny veneer of "LULZ AWESOME SILLY STUFF" completely wears off and he'll reduce it to the 4 it deserves at best.
Shallow but fun.
If I didn't like it, I wouldn't give it a 6 or 7 or play it all the way through for 200 hours.
Given it's been a year, I doubt that. The game has a lot going for it and I mostly mean Piper, Cait, and the Institute.
One poorly written faction with no clear goals or reason to side with them, and two poorly written companions who come off as ultimately generic.
A lot going for it indeed.
Yeah, immensely likable characters and a fascinating mass of contradictions. Characters like Valentine and the others really allevated what was a game which could have been awesome but ended up just better than most.
A boring reporter, a typical troubled drug addict with a horrible past and an organisation that doesn't know what exactly it's aiming for beyond vague "improving humanity".
I'd say it is the writing, the world building and the fact it's shallow.
I feel no inclination to try and defend Piper or Cait in a thread about shallowness unless you want me to explain why I think they're great characters. However, the Institute criticism I've seen before and am confused because that's actually the POINT isn't it? The Institute is a failure as an organization and is doing nothing with the technology in its possession. They are, however, a community of people who are just like any other and looking after themselves.
Shaun even comments on the fact they need someone new to make it important and effective. I like that it's not just another Caesar's Legion or Enclave but it's goals amount to one single factor: "Fuck you, I've got mine."
Criticism of this attitude also is backhanded since the Institute is Vault City reskinned for Bethesda. All the criticisms of it apply to the F2 community.
I wouldn't give 3 anything higher than a 7 and that's just as a game. As a game fallout 4 gets a 5 outta 10 because it at least works most of the time. But as sequels holy shit dude they don't even feel like they're in the same universe. 1/2/NV all fit in the same coherent interesting universe but in 3/4 the contradictions, huge and small, and bad world building have kept piling and piling and now it's broken. 3/4 destroy the universe that the original established whereas 2 and New Vegas build on it. That's why we ignore 3&4. That's why we love 2 and New Vegas.
Which basically to me says you're wrong. Objectively so to the point of saying the Sun revolves around the Earth. The rantings and ravings of a diseased mind which need to be locked away within the deepest dungeons of a sanitarium for the protection of others.
Or we just disagree on the subject.
But yes, to me when I hear people say that Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 are the same it's just a sign not to pay attention anymore. The differences between the two more or less highlight how out of step and out of touch the forums feel to me and why it's frustrating to talk about games here at times. I could talk all day and all night about how Fallout 4 butchered the lore and ruined the themes of Fallout 3.
I could mention how it didn't have nearly the power, poiganncy, or storytelling.
But what's the point?
No one can see the difference between the two.
Bethesda also gutted their own forums so there's no place for those who were fans of Fallout 3 to voice their objections to what is a RUINED classic game.
It's very frustrating.
You aim to deny that 3/4 are full inconsistencies bad world building and bare bones to bad writing? Put it this way the main villain in fallout 3 has NO MOTIVATION. if you deny these ridiculously obvious things then your just a liar tbh.
XD XD XD stop just stop. Fallout 3 is one of the most poorly written things I've ever played. 4 is too. Both are more shooters than RPGS.
And yet 3 butchers the lore of the ACTUAL classics. So once again we find more similarities.
They're both disgrace to their predecessors on multiple levels.
I agree that they aren't the same.
4 is far worse than a square mile.
But to me that doesn't change how 3 permanently scarred the franchise and created bad expectations of what Fallout should be like.
Yeah, it's basically shit like this.
The villain in Fallout 3, Colonel Autumn, wants to have the Purifier. He wants control over an objective military and social resource that will give him control over the region. Assad in Syria has control over food ways and uses it to dominate the place via starvation tactics. It's an incredibly simple and straightforward motivation that makes perfect sense.
It's a direct contrast to the motivations of Arthur Maxson and Father who both are obscure.
It also is grossly hypocritical of a bunch of Fallout fans who love New Vegas because you know there's ANOTHER game about controlling a massive source of water.
Fallout 3 went in its own direction with a lot of things and I think it makes sense more as a reboot of the franchise than it does as a direct continuation. A soft reboot is what it is, anyway, with the plot of Fallout 3 being a codensed version of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Even so, I felt it remained a work of incredible power and potency with the 3D vision of the post-apocalypse wasteland you encounter upon exiting from the vault being one of the most haunting images in video games.
There's sadness and meaning to Fallout 3.
Real human emotion and tragedy.
It's a work of art.
Fallout 4 is barely competent as something fun to do with your time.
We're on the step of "well it's EXACTLY like in the other games" of discussion huh. For one, Vault City is an actual society result of specific causes that are relatable to the player and character as it's a vault akin to theirs. While it's a pretty big part of the first journey as it's a big clue towards the GECK, you don't NEED to set a foot in. It's not key to the fate of the world. It's not got a hand in every little thing around and about yout journey. It's just another settlement that happens to have a high technological level. If anything, it's more like Rivet City if we want to make dumb tangential connections. And you do get railroaded there, but whatever. It even has more points in common plot-wise, with it being the first hint to synths, the Institute and reappearing Madison Li and mentions of others.
hey, you shouldn't complain about being forced to eat dirt. Dirt is composed of the same matter as normal food like sandwitches, for instance!
In the context of Vault City versus the Institute, for me, the big revelation about the Institute is they're not ACTIVELY evil but absently evil. Vault City is a slave owning society but because life in California is so shit (even with NCR) there are plenty of people willing to sell themselves into slavery just for a few hot meals and the safety of its walls. The SYnths are people who wouldn't exist without the Institute and its a technological Utopia. They're arrogant, condescending, and rude but the racism they have against other people is due to their belief they're a superior society--and their goals are only to continue a self-perpetuating life of luxury.
Which is a perfectly valid motivation.
It's just in other games, you expect WORLD DOMINATION from a "villain" faction.
It's just such a WEIRD complaint.
Who DOESN'T need an enormous reservoir of fresh water in a radioactive desert?
Except several things.
1. This Is never stated in any shape or form.
2. The purifier is on the fare south east side. So far away from raven rock he can't possibly hope to hold it.
3. Nobody need the pure water. Nobody except 3 bums everybody else is content and some are even more worried about gathering soda.
4. They plan to kill everybody anyway so what's the point?
Graves, you're forgetting to mix in your headcanon. If you see Fallout 3 for what your phantasy makes of it, it's a total 15/10 game.
1. You know, except for the part where he captures you and demands the code for the Purifier or he'll kill you. I think we can guess he wants the Purifer when he invades it with an army personally but clearly we need to have him specifically state in very precise language he is taking over.
2. If only he had something like an army to occupy the position, a bunch of helicopters, and plans of taking over the whole region. Oooo, or outposts he was setting up.
3. Which is why NCR doesn't need Hoover Dam. I mean, you don't hear them asking for water.
4. No they don't. That was Eden.
Clearly they needed to say Van Braun is evil because Tranquility Lane wasn't clear he was a bad guy.