Can we honestly say Fallout 4 is better than Fallout 3?

FO3 is certainly a (much) better RPG than FO4, there's not a sliver of doubt about that :)
My issue with it however is simply that: Pretty much everything it does has been done better by Fallouts that pre- (1,2) as well as succeeded it (New Vegas), whereas FO4 has elements that other aRPGs do not. Plus, for me, FO3 simply wasnt that fun to be in or play with, it feels somewhat...cheap from a worldbuilding standpoint, difficult to take seriously (The voice acting alone is cringe-worthily bad) and lazy in execution/writing.
I guess I can simply play superior RPGs, but not necessarily as many good aRPGs is maybe how I feel about it.
However, full disclosure: I never really 'roleplay' in the traditional sense when it comes to games, I always apply my own morals to them which is why a lot of 'evil' content is wasted on me. In FO4 on the other hand I did what I deemed cool, which was very enjoyable. Unlike FO3 was to me.
I did not have as much fun with a Bethesda game since liberating slaves in Morrowind, which after the initial disappointment of it not being a proper RPG I honestly did not expect. One stumbles on at least vaguely interesting places in a rather condensed area compared to a lot of dead space in FO3, and usually going into the game with the goal of doing 'That one thing' escalates in hours of game time because exploration feels so rewarding to me.
Or maybe I'm just a sucker for upgradeable, Iron Man-esque Power Armor, who knows :D
Oddly enough, I was incredibly bored by Skyrim even though the two games are probably quite similar.
But hey, each to his own, and I'm glad FO3 gave you some enjoyment :)
FO4 certainly has its flaws, of course. Which is why Im hoping for a fleshed-out sequel from Obsidian and/or Inxile ^^
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
Christopher Frederic Avellone

If the Bethdrones can have their God Howard, then we can have our Christ Avellone.
Click to expand...

But that would imply Chris Avellone is the son of Todd Howard. Or worse, the same entity as Todd Howard. I'm sure there's some name for Lucifer that can be incorporated from Todd Howard's name. I'll get to work searching my Bible and the internet.
 
Ragemage said:
But that would imply Chris Avellone is the son of Todd Howard. Or worse, the same entity as Todd Howard. I'm sure there's some name for Lucifer that can be incorporated from Todd Howard's name. I'll get to work searching my Bible and the internet.
Click to expand...
Well, Satan is the father of LIES afterall....
 
Vergil said:
Well, Satan is the father of LIES afterall....
Click to expand...

Hee, good one.

Okay, I think I found one that might work. Abaddon is one of the many names of Satan, found in Revelations 9:11. (don't you dare make a joke about that)

Abtoddon Howard? Eh.. I'll keep looking.
 
hagren said:
To my mind, yes, Fallout 4 is far, far better than 'FO3'
Yes, less of an RPG, and not exactly the worthy successor of Fo1 and 2 one might expect after being treated with NV from Obsidian-
But as it stands, I find myself still logging in the odd hour of play here and there after 90 hours whereas I re-played FO3 specifically to compare it to FO4 and can't make myself play anymore after merely playing for a measly 15 hours (Second playthrough since it came out, hated it back then, too)
Pretty much every aspect of FO4 is superior, imho. Much better voice acting. Somewhat improved writing. Clearer, yet more diverse art direction. Better GFX (Though this is expected) A far more intriguing world without level scaling and stupid. Fucking. Metro stations. Colours outside of grey and brown. A couple of interesting characters compared to well...none. Better ambient music. Power armour feels Incredible. A somewhat more logical world thanks to the settlement system. A plot that's not cobbled together from FO1 and FO2 plot points yet much poorer. Post- main quest content. More customization options.
Really, all the game needs is more immersion (Which might arrive with the revamped Survival mode) and, naturally, a lot more choices and a more complex dialogue/faction system. Well, apart from the usual Bethsoft incompetence pertaining to interface, scripting, animation issues and such.

I guess for me it comes down to this:
FO3 tried to be a worthy cRPG re-make of FO1/2 and failed, more than miserably.
Fo4 on the other hand is an exploring, looting and killing simulator that actually nails the Beth formula whilst feeling somewhat more substantial than your run-of-the-mill Action-RPG.
Please no shitty Radiant quests next time, however, and how about more non-combat choices Bethesda?
My two cents.
Click to expand...
I disagree that Fallout 4 "nails the Beth formula." The Beth formula was creating a massive, immersive open world and dropping you in it to make your own character and play how you want to play. Fallout 4 FAILS THIS by having a voiced protagonist, set story, and NO DIALOGUE SYSTEM and an incredible number of ESSENTIAL NPCs.

As for voice acting I disagree. The protagonists are badly written and only the female protagonist has decent voice acting but it doesn't matter because the actual lines are shite. The male voiced protagonist is awful. I actually stop playing the game due to cringing. Moreover, they have populated the wasteland with Cait and those Russians and other nonsensical accents that make no sense. Might as well put a New Jersey accent in Game of Thrones.

Just because Fallout 4 is better at being shallow garbage doesn't mean it's a better game. I spent the first 30 hours looking for someone to talk to and did not meet a single character that you can have an in depth conversation with. It's absolute shite the way they deleted the dialogue from this game.

Bottom line is Fallout 3 was a better RPG and a better Fallout game, whereas Fallout 4 is Borderlands 3. If you like Borderlands then of course it's an amazing game. If Bethesda called it Borderlands 3 it would probably be well received.

As for "better graphics in Fallout 4" - it is the same engine they have been using since Skyrim and before. It looks nice for still photographs and screenshots. Amazing actually. And then characters start moving and it's all the most robotic, unimmersive animation ever.

And then there's the fact that Fallout 4 plays exactly like a singleplayer MMO with its repetitive grindfest procedurally generated KILL LOOT RETURN quests...
 
Last edited:
Irwin John Finster said:
I disagree that Fallout 4 "nails the Beth formula." The Beth formula was creating a massive, immersive open world and dropping you in it to make your own character and play how you want to play. Fallout 4 FAILS THIS by having a voiced protagonist, set story, and NO DIALOGUE SYSTEM and an incredible number of ESSENTIAL NPCs.

As for voice acting I disagree. The protagonists are badly written and only the female protagonist has decent voice acting but it doesn't matter because the actual lines are shite. The male voiced protagonist is awful. I actually stop playing the game due to cringing. Moreover, they have populated the wasteland with Cait and those Russians and other nonsensical accents that make no sense. Might as well put a New Jersey accent in Game of Thrones.

Just because Fallout 4 is better at being shallow garbage doesn't mean it's a better game. I spent the first 30 hours looking for someone to talk to and did not meet a single character that you can have an in depth conversation with. It's absolute shite the way they deleted the dialogue from this game.

Bottom line is Fallout 3 was a better RPG and a better Fallout game, whereas Fallout 4 is Borderlands 3. If you like Borderlands then of course it's an amazing game. If Bethesda called it Borderlands 3 it would probably be well received.

As for "better graphics in Fallout 4" - it is the same engine they have been using since Skyrim and before. It looks nice for still photographs and screenshots. Amazing actually. And then characters start moving and it's all the most robotic, unimmersive animation ever.

And then there's the fact that Fallout 4 plays exactly like a singleplayer MMO with its repetitive grindfest procedurally generated KILL LOOT RETURN quests...
Click to expand...
In that light, Witcher 3 is also a lesser RPG because you have a set PC with a voice and a somewhat set story due to it being a book adaptation.
Heck, Mass Effect also had a voiced protagonist and in terms of CnC it blows FO4 out of the water.
Not to mention that any game will always have some restrictions given that it simply can't cover all the possible, conceivable options there are.
FO 4 has a dialogue system, it's just quite hindered by the dialogue wheel and the lack of actual response options. I do agree though that there aren't enough characters you can have substantial conversations with.
As for the lines, I did not cringe nearly as often as in FO3, but that may be because for a Bethsoft game, the voice acting was incredibly good, to my mind including the male protagonist who had great range and a very personable voice.
Ad accents: Imo they added flavor to the game. Maybe I'm an outlier, but to me, atmosphere is more significant than consistency.
No, I did not like Borderlands, since if I want a simple action RPG, I can play Diablo 2, Torchlight or Vampire the Masquerade Redemption which are both more satisfying.
Whilst FO4 is definitely a lesser RPG than its predecessors, it's not on Borderlands level of simplicity.
Lastly, there are enough quests in the game that one can ignore all or most of the inarguably horrible and dull Radiant quests, I only did a handful and still found enough content to play for 90 hours and counting.

Sure, one certainly should not expect a full-fledged RPG when playing FO4, given the limitations in CnC and dialogue there's disappointment to be had.
But if someone looks for a game that's a tad more substantial than an aRPG, FO4 is a more than decent title. Stiff animations or no ;)
 
hagren said:
In that light, Witcher 3 is also a lesser RPG because you have a set PC with a voice and a somewhat set story due to it being a book adaptation.
Click to expand...
The argument that "Fallout 4 and Witcher 3 both have voiced protagonists therefore they are of equal quality and Fallout 4 is just as good as Witcher 3" holds no water.

hagren said:
FO 4 has a dialogue system, it's just quite hindered by the dialogue wheel and the lack of actual response options.
Click to expand...
You're just agreeing with me that Fallout 4 has a crappy dialogue system.
hagren said:
the male protagonist who had great range and a very personable voice.
Ad accents: Imo they added flavor to the game. Maybe I'm an outlier, but to me, atmosphere is more significant than consistency.
Click to expand...
If you don't care about internal consistency and lore then yes, you can enjoy Fallout 4. I agree.
hagren said:
Whilst FO4 is definitely a lesser RPG than its predecessors, it's not on Borderlands level of simplicity.
Click to expand...
Borderlands has better voice acting, writing, and a more coherent universe along with more interesting characters that aren't animated like robots. The comparison to Borderlands rests on the fact that an insultingly large number of Fallout 4 quests boil down to "kill, loot, return, repeat."
hagren said:
Lastly, there are enough quests in the game that one can ignore all or most of the inarguably horrible and dull Radiant quests, I only did a handful and still found enough content to play for 90 hours and counting.
Click to expand...
I have about 100 hours in Fallout 4. The only thing that kept me going was the great exploration the game offers and trying my hardest to like the game, but that immersion is CONSTANTLY BROKEN by bad voice acting, dialogue, writing, robotic animations, camera glitches and an insultingly large number of immortal NPCs. It's really 50/50 whether I'm staring at a Brahmin's butt while dialogue occurs with how glitchy and robotic it is. I also wonder how much of that 100 hours was spent repetitively clearing bases out for Preston Gravey who called me a General within an hour of meeting me for the first time.
hagren said:
Sure, one certainly should not expect a full-fledged RPG when playing FO4
Click to expand...
Why should I not expect a Fallout game to be an RPG when every single Fallout game up to now has been an RPG? I bought this game thinking I was getting at least Fallout 3 levels of RPG and instead am playing Far Cryderlands.
hagren said:
FO4 is a more than decent title. Stiff animations or no;)
Click to expand...
I will agree that Fallout 4 by itself is not a bad game. However, it is borderline false advertising calling this game "Fallout." If it was titled Borderlands 3, it would be a tremendous improvement on the series. As it stands, it is an inexplicable mess of terrible design decisions that constantly break immersion in the game world and dumbed down the Fallout series.

I really, REALLY, REALLY tried to love Fallout 4. But it's too dumbed down, the dialogue wheel is awful, and it breaks the entire reason why I loved the previous games: Immersion.

I can enjoy Fallout 4, but I always have to make a compromise in order to do so. I have to avoid cringing at things. I have to pretend I'm not a female robot lawyer looking for my baby. This wasn't the case with previous games but everytime I start dialogue in Fallout 4 my character reminds me that yes, I am a female robotic lawyer looking for her baby. Bethesda should have stuck with what worked for them: characters that had a general main quest and very brief backstory (prisoner, Vault Dweller, whatever) but after that you were dropped in this giant, immersive world and could say dialogue how you wanted to say it and be many different kinds of characters.

In the end, I'd probably rate Fallout 4 as a solid "Meh" - it is average for me. It is neither the "worst game ever" nor is it an "amazing game." And as an enormous fan of the Fallout universe, that stings. It's a game filled with wasted potential and missed opportunities that could have been truly amazing.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure I've said this before about the voiced protagonist and the dialogue wheel, but once again - if Bethesda wanted to imitate the RPGs that give you a predefined protagonist, like The Witcher or Mass Effect, then what they needed to do was really expand the dialogue, give the player lots of choices on what to say, include much lengthier lines for them, let them guide conversations with their responses, and so on. But Bethesda instead decided to try and hit some weird sort of middle ground between those kinds of games and the "blank slate" RPGs they usually make. The end result is a protagonist with just enough character and personality to block almost all attempts at roleplaying, but certainly nowhere near enough to be at all interesting. The player is saddled with a very dull and generic "good guy" character who never has anything much to say for themselves.
 
I think the answer depends on who you ask:

I would say that 3 was better than 4 -- 4 gave me hours of generic fun, but it was just that, generic (and mindless); it's a wonderful walk around and shoot stuff simulation, with a veneer of something storyish and kinda-sorta-fallouty (in the way watching porn is kind-sorta-sex...). 3, at least, tried at being an RPG and, while it was dumbed down, I think it tried at being a legitimate Fallout game (in that same kinda-sorta way). So, for me, 3 was better.

But, I think if you asked Joe AverageBethesdaFalloutPlayer, they would probably feel very differently. Which is unfortunate, Fallout offered something unique and wasn't just a neat shooter with neat atmosphere, it's sad to see that stripped away and replaced with generic references to what was. I feel like what we got with 4 was the average of minecraft and borderlands half-assed wrapped in the shell of what made the series actually worthwhile. I'm not sure why they didn't take more cues from NV; then again, I'm not sure why so many Beth fans had a negative reaction to NV (which I still see brought up some places...).

tl;dr
3 beats 4, even if 3 wasn't great, at least it wasn't a marketing gimmick - a semi-honest tes clone beats a less than sincere cash grab. But, Beth fans, and probably the majority, wouldn't agree. Whatever the case, 3 and 4 are the bottom of the barrel.

Tom Bishop said:
if Bethesda wanted to imitate the RPGs that give you a predefined protagonist, like The Witcher or Mass Effect, then what they needed to do was ...
Click to expand...

This confused me, deeply, from a design perspective. It felt like they wanted to have the best of both worlds (open ended and predefined), but what they ended up with was the worst of both. Of course, that seems pretty damn obvious, you can't really have it both ways (and the prerecorded dialogue is going to be a pain for modding too).

What amazes me is that I know a lot of effort and energy went into making Fallout 4, and having an extensive programming background, I know that despite what else can be said, the Beth team isn't composed of lazy folk nor simpletons -- which makes it all the more egregious, I can see many of the design elements as an attempt to cash in on a casual market (shitty, but not dumb nor lazy), but what you're pointing out seems like an error that would be obvious to anyone who thought about it for a few seconds. It does rip off successful games, but while gun crafting and settlement building can be shoehorned in and readapted, character stuff doesn't work that way, and they have to know that, and know that it was a bad choice. I'd love to interview the game staff and see what they were thinking with that one.

*If this reads like it was written by an 8 year old, I'm writing right before bed, so apologies.
 
Last edited:
Irwin John Finster said:
The argument that "Fallout 4 and Witcher 3 both have voiced protagonists therefore they are of equal quality and Fallout 4 is just as good as Witcher 3" holds no water.


You're just agreeing with me that Fallout 4 has a crappy dialogue system.

If you don't care about internal consistency and lore then yes, you can enjoy Fallout 4. I agree.

Borderlands has better voice acting, writing, and a more coherent universe along with more interesting characters that aren't animated like robots. The comparison to Borderlands rests on the fact that an insultingly large number of Fallout 4 quests boil down to "kill, loot, return, repeat."

I have about 100 hours in Fallout 4. The only thing that kept me going was the great exploration the game offers and trying my hardest to like the game, but that immersion is CONSTANTLY BROKEN by bad voice acting, dialogue, writing, robotic animations, camera glitches and an insultingly large number of immortal NPCs. It's really 50/50 whether I'm staring at a Brahmin's butt while dialogue occurs with how glitchy and robotic it is. I also wonder how much of that 100 hours was spent repetitively clearing bases out for Preston Gravey who called me a General within an hour of meeting me for the first time.

Why should I not expect a Fallout game to be an RPG when every single Fallout game up to now has been an RPG? I bought this game thinking I was getting at least Fallout 3 levels of RPG and instead am playing Far Cryderlands.

I will agree that Fallout 4 by itself is not a bad game. However, it is borderline false advertising calling this game "Fallout." If it was titled Borderlands 3, it would be a tremendous improvement on the series. As it stands, it is an inexplicable mess of terrible design decisions that constantly break immersion in the game world and dumbed down the Fallout series.

I really, REALLY, REALLY tried to love Fallout 4. But it's too dumbed down, the dialogue wheel is awful, and it breaks the entire reason why I loved the previous games: Immersion.

I can enjoy Fallout 4, but I always have to make a compromise in order to do so. I have to avoid cringing at things. I have to pretend I'm not a female robot lawyer looking for my baby. This wasn't the case with previous games but everytime I start dialogue in Fallout 4 my character reminds me that yes, I am a female robotic lawyer looking for her baby. Bethesda should have stuck with what worked for them: characters that had a general main quest and very brief backstory (prisoner, Vault Dweller, whatever) but after that you were dropped in this giant, immersive world and could say dialogue how you wanted to say it and be many different kinds of characters.

In the end, I'd probably rate Fallout 4 as a solid "Meh" - it is average for me. It is neither the "worst game ever" nor is it an "amazing game." And as an enormous fan of the Fallout universe, that stings. It's a game filled with wasted potential and missed opportunities that could have been truly amazing.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we have to agree to disagree ^^
Though I'll say whilst I expected an RPG, I did not expect Fallout as I knew it. I did that with FO3 and was badly burnt. And to my mind, I rather play a good aRPG that is falsely named than a cRPG that's not only falsely named but beat to shreds by FO1, 2 and NV. Bethesda just simply does not have the finesse and writing chops for such a game, imo, and if I want a Fallout RPG, I'd rather play those which were made by people who can write accordingly.
 
So?
It's not like we don't know about this. Everyone here perfectly well knows that Beth doesn't have what it takes to make a great Fallout game. Hell many of us believe they even lack what it takes to make a great RPG in general. But I digress.
However we still can complain about it and criticise it. Otherwise any discussion here would end pretty much after 2 posts.

- You know Bethesda made a sequel to F4?
- Yeah! And it is not a really good Fallout game.
- Ah well! You see Perkele! Bethesda simply doesn't have the finesse to make a Fallout game.
- Close the topic guys! Beth doesn't have what it takes!​

Knowing that Beth can't deliver a Fallout game is one thing. And we know and accept the reality. However most of us here simply refuse to settle down for mediocrity. And I see no reason why we should support it.

*Edit
There can also not be a lot of doubt that a fully voiced protagonist can hurt the dialog of RPGs. That is pretty obvious when you compare the extensive dialog that you get with games like Planescape Torment and Fallout 4 and similar games. Like Mass Effect. While Bioware is trying their best to delive a great narrative, you simply have more limitations with a voiced dialog. And even if you had enough money and no reason to worry about the amount of data, you STILL have to deal with the issue of presentation.
With dialog as text you, as a writer, have a very huge range of tools that you can use to create certain emotions. Not to mention that it is MUCH easier to make changes here, if you don't have to cast again the voice actors. There is a reason why books are seen very often as superior to the movie, if the movie is based on the book. When you give a character a voice, you already define a certain image about the character. He will always be and sound like this voice you hear. You can not imagine anything, you can not create accents, you simply don't leave much room for interpretation. This is alright for NPCs. Because you want them to have a certain character and personality. I love the way Baldurs Gate and Fallout 1/2 did it. But it certainly can hurt the role playing if you do the same for the player.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top