Opinions on Fallout 4?

Sn1p3r187

Carolinian Shaolin Monk
I hear a few of you don't like it too much and a few of you like it. Care to say why you do or don't. I'll admit, after a lot of debating in my head I'm really stuck and in between on liking Fallout 4 and thinking it betrayed what Fallout is about. Fallout 3 may have been the one that betrayed it the most but on Fallout 4 we might as well say the light has died and New Vegas was the last real Fallout game. Kinda like the 1993 game Syndicate and that crappy 2012 FPS Syndicate. (Sigh) debates and more debates. Like if it isn't what it was in gameplay formula it might as well committed digital suicide on a franchise. Opinions?
 
Wel lthe short one of it is:

I hate what they have done to the dialogue system, skills and the voiced protagonist. not to mention the almost confimed return of the land of immortal NPCs.
I specially cringed at Todd Howard's grandiose speech about what made Fallout special too. To me this was a worse blow to the Fallout series than 3 was. At least 3 was justincompetent in it's translation to first person, 4 seems to not even be caring about translating anything and is wholesalely just chopping off some of the more important aspects of the game with an almost adamant disrespect for the originals all to emulate Mass Effect, a game that isn't even an RPG (IMO).
Which is a shame, because if it wasn't for that I would have been into things like the less murky visuals, sculping based character creation, settlement building and weapon customization. But as it stands it's sole existence offends me.
 
Wel lthe short one of it is:

I hate what they have done to the dialogue system, skills and the voiced protagonist, not to mention the almost confirmed return of the land of immortal NPCs.
I specially cringed at Todd Howard's grandiose speech about what made Fallout special too. To me this was a worse blow to the Fallout series than 3 was.
Which is a shame, because if it wasn't for that I would have been into things like the less murky visuals, sculpting based character creation, settlement building and weapon customization. But as it stands it's sole existence offends me.

Pretty much everything he said. I am reminded of the time I told myself to wait for Fallout 3 to come out before jumping to conclusions, yet everyone was right all along as far as the many glaring flaws it had. I think Fallout 4 is doing away with many of the things that made the series great. The problem is some people want a more involved RPG and some people want a hiking simulator. The series is moving more and more towards being a hiking simulator. Some might balk at that title yet it fits so perfectly. Plan on building a house, getting married, having kids, and not having to worry about getting killed because reloading is too hard.

Don't get me wrong. I thought Skyrim was a pretty interesting game, but did anyone think the story was good? The "streamlining" of the perk system in Skyrim was just a taste of what was to come. I thought at the time that it would be too drastic a change for even Bethesda fans to accept. I should have known after Morrowind. Don't worry about accidentally killing anyone because if they are important they will stand right back up. Got killed by a mini nuke? Nah he just got knocked out. I wonder who is important for the storyline? They can't be killed so they stand out. One of the things that really bugs me is the critical hits being executed by a refillable meter. Why?

Player freedom remains their primary goal according to Todd. I think that is exactly what their fans want too. They hated being too weak to go north from Goodsprings in New Vegas. They felt constrained by that one thing, on top of that all too familiar phrase: Choice and Consequences. Most Bethesda fans don't want consequences for their actions. They want freedom and choice but no consequences. I think that is one of the main things that differentiates some Fallout fans from others.

We can't complain too much about the story since they have barely spoken about it, but that is what makes or breaks the game for me. I can overlook certain things if I can mod them out, but a shitty plot is hard to recover from.


My Thoughts went something like this:


Fallout 4 at E3? It can't be any worse than Fallout 3, right?

Concept art isn't that bad. I never cared for Todd Howard personally.

Pre-war intro with playable section? I can dig it.

Applause for female characters? I hate the gaming press. Were they coached to applause?

Dialog wheel? Voiced protagonist? *heart drops*

Player freedom is number one goal. This might have been less irritating to hear back in 2006. Now I want to punch myself in the face anytime I hear Bethesda say it.

Dynamic lighting got a rise out of me. I could clearly tell the difference from previous efforts. I'm not sure why people complained about the graphics of all things. A non-issue for me.

Applause for the dog. Why? Another Dogmeat wannabe? At least New Vegas had a robodog.

Giving commands to companions looks a lot like JIP Companions Command and Control.

The black and white Pipboy photo brought the excitement back up a little. They do some things very well. The animations on the Pipboy in game are pretty cool too. If they are going the cinematic route then these things are much needed.

Crafting overhaul is welcomed although some of the materials used are silly. A globe used for a scope? Sure. Why not?

Planting food and water is cool. Generators are actually an idea I had before. I like it. All of that stuff gets me excited.

Combat montage. Some of the things shown here are much welcomed. A pistol whip for example, the animations on the dog tearing at the enemy's throats, animations in general are improved a lot. Other stuff looks strikingly similar to Fallout 3...

Power Armor looks improved by a metric ton.

Brotherhood of Steel? At least I didn't see any Enclave troops. I'm not sure a vertibird is needed much unless they do away with fast travel, which I'm sure they would never do.

My emotions jumped and plummeted a number of times before settling near indifference. What I'm feeling about Fallout is about how I started to feel about the Resident Evil series.
 
I am not liking or disliking the game yet. It wasn't released and i didn't played it. Contrary to Fo3, that i played without knowing how much it would suck, i intend to read as many non-affiliated reviews as possible, to get the idea if the game is worth playing, and if the publisher deserve money for it. Wallet is the only way we can express ourselves. If we keep saying it is shit, but buy their next game anyway, it is just the same as saying we like it. So if the review are poor, i would say that people i trust say it is shit, rather than i didn't like it.

Although, from the news i already have, i have the feeling it will be shit. I don't know for sure the overall game will be shit, but most relevant news we had go toward that direction. Amongs the bad things.

- Voiced protagonist (and the debate about it making the story better or not. It doesn't make the story better or worse, it make it voiced. The only relevance is about player choices and immersion, not quality of story. To make the story good, you need to care about writting and work on it)
- Dialog system, with four button and short written sentences.
- Removal of skills (confirmed ?)
- Heterosexual protagonist, that chose to get married with character X, to buy house X, decorate it this way, bought a robot called Codworth, chose X program for it, chose to be a vault dweller etc... The games hasn't lasted an hour yet and the devellloppers already remove a lot of control over the player-character. It is supposed to be a game about freedom in the RPG genre, and they didn't considered important to let the players keep the control over their own characters. What were they thinking ?
- Essential characters. What the hell ? Everyone complaining about it, proposing easy to code alternatives, and they still use that silly thing ?
- Same team that made Fo3. Considering the mess the game was, it would have made sense to fire at least 99% of those guys.
- The guy with childish voice telling on video that the game is about freedom, while saying on written interview that he gave too much choices in Fo3. TOO MUCH CHOICES IN FALLOUT 3 ? I wonder if he actually played the game...
- Still all that fantasy about the bombs. It happened 200 years ago. All the character you meet on the game should have got well over it. 99% of the game population never saw the bombs fell in the first place. The world they were born into is their world. They care about 2077 as much as we care about the Roman Empire or the American settlers. It is just past stuff.
- The 1000 recorded names for the robot. So many ressources wasted for an inconsequential gimmick only good for tech show... It has no relevance in the game and won't be used by most player with other names or using nicknames.
- I am not sure if they will allow you to name it or if they will call it Dogmeat again (how original). But still, ANOTHER GENERIC DOG takes up one party slot.
- Not confirmed yet, but i saw thread mentioning ONLY 8 endings on the Beth website.

On the other hand :
- More craft, building settlements, it is nice that they worked on it, and it is cool for players who actually like it. But for those who don't, it might seems like they spent ressources there that could be much more needed elsewhere, like writting, C & C, player agency, gray morality, etc... Yet, they worked on something that might actually work.
- It is yet to be seen if the vehicle is balanced and if it actually fully replace fast-travel, but it is nice to see that working vehicles are finally back... (still wonder why they were absent in Fo3-FoNV...)
- It seem that the design of settlement is a little better and that there are more people in it.
- From what i heard about it, Fallout Shelter might actually be good and challenging. We'll just have to wait for the (official or un-official) PC port... (although, i also heard that the vault currency is caps)

The most good news, IMO, isn't even about Fo4, but about the spin-off...
 
Last edited:
What I liked about the original Fallouts was that they were pretty hardcore about constructing a coherent and brutal post-apocalyptic world where survival is tough and the overtones of general hopelessness are everywhere. On top of that solid setting, they would make you roleplay your character by making you focus on your quest (which is to save your people from death by dehydration/starvation) and giving you absolute freedom to act inside the world (even by killing any and all characters) and the responsibility of making the right choices, and the plot would react to the choices you made at the end.

When I played Fallout 3, I saw that Bethesda didn't appreciate any of those features I so much loved on Fallout. They butchered the setting by filling the world with silly shit that didn't fit into the theme of the game (vampires, bladerunner androids, a peter pan village, idiots in super hero costumes, a stupid DJ that doesn't do anything besides talking about the vault dweller's exploits 24/7, etc...) and they choked player freedom by making way too many characters be immortal (the end result is that your character can be a remorseless murder machine that blows up a town full of people just for kicks and still takes shit from a 9 years old with a pea-shooter) and way too many choices to be taken for you instead of by you (you can't choose to not follow Sarah Lyon's when you first meet her, you can't choose to not let your father kill himself in the water purifier, you can't avoid being captured by the Enclave, you can't choose to not side yourself with the brotherhood of steel, etc...), thus they killed some of the main aspects that made me enjoy the series. Thus my hope so far hasn't been very high for Fallout 4 especially since nothing that has been shown of the game up to this point made it seem that those flaws from Fallout 3 will be addressed.

I haven't played the game yet, so the jury is still out, but my expectations are low.
 
Last edited:
I hear a few of you don't like it too much and a few of you like it. Care to say why you do or don't.
Fallout 4 isn't out yet... However, the E3 presentation was awesome, it looks like FO4 will be a much better Action-RPG then FO3 was. There are few points of concern, and I am pretty sure that each of them has its own thread here.

I'll admit, after a lot of debating in my head I'm really stuck and in between on liking Fallout 4 and thinking it betrayed what Fallout is about. Fallout 3 may have been the one that betrayed it the most but on Fallout 4 we might as well say the light has died and New Vegas was the last real Fallout game.


A while back I read an interview with Chris avellone concerning FO:NV development, he said that they would be focusing on the elements that made fallout great, but especially on FO3, because that what most people played and are going to expect from any subsequent Fallout title...

Once Beth picked up fallout IP its future was decided. Anyone who wish to enjoy FO4 need to realize that and consider of FO3 as the baseline, otherwise fallout general discussion would be a better place for a topic on the franchise future, IMO.

- Heterosexual protagonist, that chose to get married with character X, to buy house X, decorate it this way, bought a robot called Codworth, chose X program for it, chose to be a vault dweller etc... The games hasn't lasted an hour yet and the devellloppers already remove a lot of control over the player-character. It is supposed to be a game about freedom in the RPG genre, and they didn't considered important to let the players keep the control over their own characters. What were they thinking ?

There is a limit to how many times they can pull out an amnesia scenario.. And I don't think your are more limited then you were in FO3 or the originals for that matter.. In fallout 1 we played a 20 year old (cannon wise), heterosexual protagonist, who was born and raised in the vault, hence followed the same regimented life and had the same room decor as everyone else, who picked the short straw.. and i'll pick suburban american dream over tribal in a tent anyvday.
 
Last edited:
I dont like some of the things Ive seen on the surface but Im reserving judgement until more info is available. Im sure it wont be New Vegas but if its somewhere between FO3 and NV I would consider that a win.

I do plan on buying the game, probably the day it comes out as Im sure I will enjoy it on some level. Hell I like GTA games and they are pretty brainless lol
 
Also. Do you think Bethesda betrayed Fallout with the First person and third person views and the fact they got rid of the action point based combat from the first two? Could you even say its Fallout anymore?
 
The transition to a first/third person RPG was welcome to me. I really think it was the right step, allowing players to for the first time explore the Fallout world in first person. The entirely action point based combat from 1 and 2 obviously would not work well in this mainly first person RPG.

I think Fallout was never about the gameplay mechanics, or the isometric view. It's about exploring the world, meeting competing factions and ideologies trying to carve a new kind of civilization from the ruins of the past, and so it's very introspective on the nature of humanity and its penchant for war. If a Fallout game does that, regardless of whether it's isometric or first person, it's a great Fallout game.
 
The transition to a first/third person RPG was welcome to me. I really think it was the right step, allowing players to for the first time explore the Fallout world in first person. The entirely action point based combat from 1 and 2 obviously would not work well in this mainly first person RPG.

I think Fallout was never about the gameplay mechanics, or the isometric view. It's about exploring the world, meeting competing factions and ideologies trying to carve a new kind of civilization from the ruins of the past, and so it's very introspective on the nature of humanity and its penchant for war. If a Fallout game does that, regardless of whether it's isometric or first person, it's a great Fallout game.

Agreed.
 
- Still all that fantasy about the bombs. It happened 200 years ago. All the character you meet on the game should have got well over it. 99% of the game population never saw the bombs fell in the first place. The world they were born into is their world. They care about 2077 as much as we care about the Roman Empire or the American settlers. It is just past stuff.

Alright I'm not sure you understand how a story works here, and did you purposely mention the Roman Empire to bring up Caesar's Legion? Further, what "fantasy" are you talking about? The PC literally lived during the Great War, how would he or why would he not be aware of it exactly?
 
Many people here have very low opinions of Fallout 3, and while that sentiment is totally warranted in some respects, Fallout 3 to me is a mixed bag. There are some things I thought were well done, such as the pre-war notes and terminal entries (E.g., Germantown logs written Joel Burgess), the layout of the DC countryside, the BoS outcasts, but other things like the main story, the world building (efforts to make the world at least make reasonable sense), most sidequests, and the combat were pretty bad.

In the end, Fallout 3 is still a Fallout game, capturing the aesthetic style but missing so much in the narrative department core to the first two games.

Now looking to Fallout 4, here's some things I'm glad about so far:
- The combat looks very improved (E.g., enemies are affected by projectile physics), but that should be expected
- Power armor better matches its description in lore
- Urban areas are larger and more detailed than the tiny ones from 3 and New Vegas
- Environments in general are bigger and more detailed. New Vegas had the habit of too many marked locations that are better categorized as unmarked, because they're just a small cave or shack.
- Extensive weapon modding

We don't know anything about the main story, besides that the Institute and BoS are involved. I like that Bethsoft is not giving out any spoilers. We're not completely sure when this game even begins. It seems like 2277 after what Todd, Pete, and Codsworth said, but that robot could be a planted spy. How do you think he could have survived 200 years without being attacked and salvaged?

The Amazon product description seems legitimate, so we'll be able to side with different factions, and we at least won't be getting a linear story.
 
I mention the develloppers fantasy about the great war.
The great war is just an excuse to have the world turned into what we know in the Fallout Series.
It was never the focus of those games, but a singular event of the past.
There is no need to put so much focus on this, especially so late in the series, and two times already.
This event doesn't matter in the gameworld. Todd & Co should get over it too.

About the already known bad things, i forgot to mention that the pre-war seems more about the 50s, that an alternate world that evolved its own way since the 50s. I seems that they missed the mark once more.

-----------------------------

About the character already defined, i will copy-paste one of my previous post, to save some time. There is an amount of things that is under a person's control and an amount of things that were set upon him by life itself, just in real life. You don't choose your skin color or were you were born, those things happened before any involvement from yourself. Let's call those things background. But the background isn't really who you are. Then, there is an amount of thing that aren't your decisions, but aren't the decisions of others either. Having a low HQ, a weak constitution, some mental disorders etc... Those things are your nature, which is different than your background. Then, you have your personnality, which is who you are deep inside. Then you make choices and you have motives that lead to those choices. Then, you have your evolution, that is your life between your birth and the present, which is a mix of all of those things, including your nature, your choices, and your motives. At last, there are outside events that happened to you, without any control from yourself, that don't depend on who you are, but isn't either related to your background.

In Fo1-Fo2-FoNV, to generalize a bit, the only things that are already defined are parts of your background (you were born in Vault 13/Arroyo), and an outside event that force you to leave. You didn't decide to go for the water chip, or the GECK, but were chosen by your people for doing that task, not because you are worthy, but expendable, or randomly chosen, or because Hakunin plants say so. Hell, you can be a complete moron with a weak constitution, unable to fight a rat, and still be chosen. The other members of your settlements might even lampshade this by considering the wrong person was picked. The choice of sending you doesn't depend on who you are at all. Then, you have indeed made a choice, but the only choice was to accept the task and leave your hometown. But if you didn't leave the hometown, you wouldn't explore the gameworld. So it isn't hard to accept that your character would want to do the same thing as the guy who bothered to buy the game, although for different reasons that you can choose to emphasis. Explore the gameworld is mandatory for both of you or there would be no game. Other than that, there is one other forced choice in Fo2, destroying the Enclave, but there is several possible motives. Destroying the Enclave because you hate them, saving your village, or just self-survival, as they want to kill everyone, including you. The courrier also chose to become a courrier, but we don't know anything past that. He might enjoy the job, or just doing that occasionnally amongs thousand of other jobs, he might owe ton of money etc...

Other than that, everything is up to you. You can decide the rest of your background, you can decide your nature, you can decide your personality, you decide your choices and motives, you can decide your evolution, you can decide who to side with in main/side quests, (and if you want to meet/kill Benny, find the chip, learn about them, or ignore them) you can decide your behavior, if you want to kill everyone, kill no one, be diplomat, be violent, be stealthy, have great intelligence, be a complete moron, be strong, be weak etc... Only things decided for you are a bit of background and one outside event that kick you in the gameworld.

In Fo3, they are already in a middle ground. You have more background elements forced upon you (lost your mother, were born outside, raised by a doctor father in a vault, expelled at 19, be loved by your father), but those are background elements. You can theorically choose your nature, personnality, some of your evolution, some motives, choices etc... You might say that somehow, you are forced to love your father, but you can choose to semi-antagonize him or at least disrespect him. You are free to antagonize or love Butch and Amata. The problem is that no matter if you keep mistreating your father and Amata, they will keep loving and helping you (imagine that the first person that comes to help you agains't her own father is the one you bullied for 19 years). Which gives the impression that the game refuse to aknowledge your agency. Not matter your choice, what happens next is what the develloppers chosen instead of what you chose. You can be a very kind and forgetfull Fo3 apologist and consider that those Vault people love for people they spent all their life with can never be broken. If that so, why so many of them try to kill you ? Let's be kind and consider that you have an input in your vault life. Then you are kicked from the vault, but not because who you are, but because what another character (your dad) did, and the overseer mistrust of him and his relatives.

After you leave it, it only goes downhill. No matter the nature, personality, motives, evolution and choices you try to provide to your character, the devellopper will always force him to make some choice (which, being forced, annihiliate the concept of choice) that can and probably will contradict all the character building you made. No matter what you decided for your character, he will escape your control and follow the develloppers orders, by looking for dad, helping him, joining the brotherhood, looking for the geck, and helping activate project purity. Not only your characters will have to do those things to finish the game (if you add Broken Steel, he wouldn't even be able to actually finish the game), but the others characters will also lose their agency by having a predetermined behavior instead the one they should have after your own action. If you killed thousands of BOS members, Lyons should never consider you as an hero, for instance.

So, IMO, Fo3 mostly managed to give you some input in the beginning (but still removing a lot of your agency compared with Fo1-Fo2-FoNV), pretend to leave you some agency afterward, but completly blow up the illusion when you are following the main quest. Which is, at best, a mixed bag. At worst, a complete denial of your agency.

About the blank state, it mostly fits to FoT. You can define some part of your nature (stats), and tiny part of your personnality (choosing to do optionnal objectives and how), and one (very committing) to join the BOS and follow its order. Everything else is a blank state, IMO, not because you don't have forced personnality/motive/nature/background/etc, but contrary to Fo1-Fo2-FoNV, there is not enough options in the game to allow you to choose how you will fill the blank and how the NPC will respond to it. With Fo1-Fo2-FoNV almost everything in the gameworld, allow you to make choices, define who you really are (despite the partial background and the single forced event) and the gameworld is reactive enough to react to it, providing the much needed consequences.

Which makes us pretty much worried, is not only the controversial way of handling those choices (of lack of) in Fallout 3, but also all the things that seem to be forced upon us, that go well beyond background and one single forced event. The tone of your voice, your heterosexuality, your marriage, your child, how you decorated your house, how you talk to your wife, buying the robot butler and choosing its programming. All of those things involve some develloppers decisions overriding your own, about your character's nature, personnality, behavior, evolution, motives and choices, with cover all the factors mentioned above. Of course, we cannot know to what extend the regression will occur, as it is only the beginning of the game, but so many devellopers choices overriding our own in just a few minutes is indeed extremely worrying.

Also, considering that the dev stated a few times that they wanted to give the player freedom, they seem about to fail that promise, by removing from the player several aspects of a freedom he already had in almost every other titles of the series, a freedom that was amongs the very things that made that series worth of praises in the first place. No matter if we love or hate that trend, a part of the player freedom to control its characters was removed. The remaining question is how much of this freedom we will still have at the end.

Once again, i am explaining an evolution and why some of us are worried. You don't have to be worried if you think that this freedom is unecessary. (although that freedom was one of the core things of the franchise, one of the thing that still make the games famous almost 20 years later)
 
Last edited:
Freedom. Story. Bethesda. Choices. My grandmother used to tell me stories about the old days, a time of peace when Obsidian kept balance between the Freedom Tribes, Choice Kingdom, Bethesda Nation, and Story Nomads. But that all changed when the Bethesda Nation attacked. Only Obsidian mastered all four elements. Only he could stop the ruthless Bethesda writers. But when the world needed them most, they vanished. A hundred years have passed and the Bethesda Nation is nearing victory in the War. Two years ago, my father and the men of my tribe journeyed to the Choice Kingdom to help fight against the Bethesda Nation, leaving me and my brother to look after our tribe. Some people believe that Obsidian was never reborn into the Story Nomads, and that the cycle is broken. But I haven't lost hope. I still believe that somehow, Obsidian will return to save the world.
 
The portrayal of the pre-war world didn't seem too 50s oriented to me. It's only a short segment of the game, and it looks like we'll be back to our traditional Fallout kind of wasteland after.

I'm certainly not happy that they made the PC voiced. The voice is of course one of the most important ways to distinguish a person, because it varies so greatly among our species. It's such a defining feature to one's identity, so the voice for the PC alone strips a massive degree of freedom from the player. Bethesda knows this, and also considering his/her parent role, wants to make the PC in Fallout 4 have far more of an established identity.
 
I mention the develloppers fantasy about the great war.
The great war is just an excuse to have the world turned into what we know in the Fallout Series.
It was never the focus of those games, but a singular event of the past.
There is no need to put so much focus on this, especially so late in the series, and two times already.
This event doesn't matter in the gameworld. Todd & Co should get over it too.

About the already known bad things, i forgot to mention that the pre-war seems more about the 50s, that an alternate world that evolved its own way since the 50s. I seems that they missed the mark once more.

See I like the pre-war stuff and the focus on the Great War, but that's because I'm a fan of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. In some cases it works to keep the disaster ambiguous like in The Road, but for this it makes the world that much richer. I personally don't understand the issue with this stuff, but different strokes and all.

The world is a retro-futuristic view of the future with 50's aesthetics, kind of like its always been. I'm not sure when it wasn't.
 
THere is a different betwen Retro futurism and just making it the 50's with robots, specially because Previous Fallout games had never implied they never went past the 50's in culture, they weren't listenning to 50's music in the 2077, there are even references to Glam Rock, the Hippie movement and a lot of other things, Bethesda seems to have taken the "Retro" part of the setting and handle it with the subtlety and grace of a brick to the face.
 
THere is a different betwen Retro futurism and just making it the 50's with robots, specially because Previous Fallout games had never implied they never went past the 50's in culture, they weren't listenning to 50's music in the 2077, there are even references to Glam Rock, the Hippie movement and a lot of other things, Bethesda seems to have taken the "Retro" part of the setting and handle it with the subtlety and grace of a brick to the face.
Tu vivo en Columbia? Habla espanol?
 
Yeah, but you don't seem to.

You would say "Vives en Colombia? Hablas español?".

Vivo is the conjugated version of Vivir for the first person, so Vivo is only appropiate with "I" or "Yo". You can also completely drop the noun qhen the phrase contains a conjugated verb as it can be infered who yo uare refering to with the conjugation of the Verb. It's not necesarily wrong to have the noun in the phrase but it's kind of redundant and sounds very overly formal to use it on everything, think like using "do not" instead of "Don't".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top