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

Crni Vuk said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree that Bethsoft can't make either a great cRPG nor a great Fallout title (Or at least, one that is as rich and well-written as 1, 2 or NV).
And naturally, one can discuss the flaws and merits of their games, no disagreement here :)

I'm with you that just because FO4 is a Beth game we should not overlook ist flaws or even take them for granted- they went too far with simplifying it, the next FO needs more choices, greater dialogue trees, skills, traits and perks that influence our dialogue and quest options, less focus on combat, a more fleshed-out faction system or even the Karma system back, better animations, more lore and internal/logical consistency, a (far) more intuitive Interface, more branching quest paths and a greater focus on CnC.

It's just that I enjoyed the groundwork they layed- FO3 may be the better RPG and Fallout title, New Vegas certainly is/was on both accounts, but all the small and big improvements/changes they made made it a more enjoyable game to me than FO3.
Now they just need to build on it, and I hope they won't "rest on their laurels" and really, really do.

If all else fails, perhaps InXile/Obsidian can pick up the slack? ^^

As for the voiced PC...I'm really torn, but that may be because I play RPGs differently than most, I'd say- I define my character by his/her choices and how they impact the world and its inhabitants, not by my skills, class, backstory et al, because those I pick according to what is most fun to me (Which usually is a charismatic, kind Paladin in a big hunk of armor and huge guns, who likes to avoid combat by talking his way out of it, never sneaks and wants to help people).
On one hand, sure, with a silent PC you can project yourself more into his/her shoes, and the devs can write far more dialogue without having to worry about the cost of voice actors.
On the other hand, to me, a voiced Protagonist has a bigger emotional impact, perchance given that I don't mind playing a set character.
Or because I find it somewhat...odd that you stay silent, in a way.

Either way, I just really hope the feedback lets them know that we want a game that's more of an RPG, not less, without them scrapping what actually did work in FO4.
 
Looking back on launch day, I feel like Bethesda really bit off more than they could chew with the hype train for Fallout 4. The way they were marketing it, they could've made a proper successor to New Vegas and still have several fans come off disappointed in the end. Sometimes, there is such a thing as too much marketing. It's no surprise that they would never live up to the hype. Some would say they barely pass the modern standards for how well-polished an AAA game should be, but considering the entire industry nowadays and how low the standards are, I think they've already passed them.

Admittedly, it would be impossible for me to judge both games without the influence of the marketing, but I suppose if someone who was not at all exposed to any of the hype for Fallout 4 played the game and then follow it by playing Fallout 3, their judgement would be most spot on out of the lot. Personally, the flaws equalise for me and the two games just end up being a "which kind of game do you want to play more" sort of question. A post-apocalyptic reskin of the Elder Scrolls, or a post-apocalyptic reskin of Borderlands on singleplayer?

Besides, I wager in a few years when Bethesda's next take on the Fallout franchise gets a release, we'll all be looking back on Fallout 4 as this year's Fallout 3 - much better in comparison. It ends up being a matter of perspective.
 
I think there are elements of both games that outdo the other.
It's not as binary as 'is 3 better than 4 & vice versa'.
 
Other than the graphics engine, I'm unwilling to concede that ANY part of Fallout 4 is stronger than 3.


The writing? The story is the same crap as Fallout 3, but now you're looking for the son instead of the father, and they still couldn't get away from a stupidly predictable "twist", liberty prime, and a massive 'splosion boss fight.

The quests? Garbage by comparison. The written ones are poorly written and often shit all over the canon, and the radiant ones are empty kill/loot mmo trash.

The factions? They're nonsensical compared to the nonsensical ones in Fallout 3.

The world design? Blegh. TOWNS with 4-5 buildings and no actual purpose. Most of the locations are raider/mutant/ghoul dungeons.

Even the DLC look to be crappier than the Fallout 3 ones.
 
I will concede that there are things Fallout 4 did better. I liked shooting guns and I liked the lack of green filter. But even Fallout 3, being what it is, is as a whole more enjoyable than Fallout 4. I don't get the same feeling of "why even bother" when I decide to start a new game.
 
Well, the sims one does have arena's too.
...
Then again, Oblivion that was released in 2005 also had an arena.
 
Even given all of it's faults, mothership zeta was at least their attempt to incorporate what they saw of the silly Mars Attacks! style aliens of previous easter eggs, in previous Fallout games, into their own thing.

Their new DLC appear to be 2 parts crappy content mods that modders have already done better, and 1 part shoehorned-in Lovecraftian survival horror lite.

None of that even has a hint of Fallout about it, while the Pitt, anchorage, Borked Steel and MZ all had moments where they seemed like they had something to do with the IP.
 
I think that (somehow) the writing in Fallout 3 was somewhat better, it had real conversation skill checks, more interesting characters/dialogue and a lot more replay value than Fallout 4. All Fallout 4 really did well was make power armour look and feel really badass but is that really worth it when you also have to deal with
HATE NEWSPAPERS (X)
 
Vergil said:
I think that (somehow) the writing in Fallout 3 was somewhat better, it had real conversation skill checks, more interesting characters/dialogue and a lot more replay value than Fallout 4. All Fallout 4 really did well was make power armour look and feel really badass but is that really worth it when you also have to deal with
HATE NEWSPAPERS (X)
Click to expand...
Obviously. The writing in Fallout 3 was much better, mainly as it had at least two ways to do most quests. While the choices were still limited it was far more impressive then anything Fallout 4 gave.
 
Fallout 3 had way less quests.
Skyrim has tons of quests but is very linear.
Fallout 4 has tons of quests but most of them are very linear.

Sooooo.... For TESVI/Fallout 5 maybe we need 'less' quests?
 
Dr Fallout said:
Obviously. The writing in Fallout 3 was much better, mainly as it had at least two ways to do most quests. While the choices were still limited it was far more impressive then anything Fallout 4 gave.
Click to expand...
The only thing the dialogue did better in FO3 was have skill checks, take those away and have a discount Troy Baker read it to you and it's the same shit you get in FO4.
 
Theinnerfish said:
Mothership Zeta...
Click to expand...
Well, at least all the temporary followers from MZ DLC that were captured before the nuclear apocalypse had more personality and backstory than both male and female Lone Survivors. Even the detail put into Toshiro Kago is enormous compared to the detail of any companion in FO4, like for example:
  • He is originally nicknamed "Chinaman" by Paulson, but after Sally tells him that Toshiro is from Japan, Paulson then calls him "Oriental".
  • He speaks in an archaic, highly ceremonial register of Japanese, used primarily among the nobility and Samurai of feudal Japan.
  • Despite being unable to understand English, Toshiro still responds with different dialogue depending on whether the player speaks to him with the polite, neutral, or smarmy dialogue options, presumably picking up on the player's tone and body language.
  • Toshiro has the typical armor of the Oda samurai and wears the colors of the Oda clan - lemon yellow kote and other pieces in black.
  • The mon chosen by Toshiro was a mon popular among the samurai class, since the swards are the symbol of the samurai spirit and the three leaves represent compassion, wisdom and virtue:
WoodSorrel.png
 
Risewild said:
Well, at least all the temporary followers from MZ DLC that were captured before the nuclear apocalypse had more personality and backstory than both male and female Lone Survivors. Even the detail put into Toshiro Kago is enormous compared to the detail of any companion in FO4, like for example:
  • He is originally nicknamed "Chinaman" by Paulson, but after Sally tells him that Toshiro is from Japan, Paulson then calls him "Oriental".
  • He speaks in an archaic, highly ceremonial register of Japanese, used primarily among the nobility and Samurai of feudal Japan.
  • Despite being unable to understand English, Toshiro still responds with different dialogue depending on whether the player speaks to him with the polite, neutral, or smarmy dialogue options, presumably picking up on the player's tone and body language.
  • Toshiro has the typical armor of the Oda samurai and wears the colors of the Oda clan - lemon yellow kote and other pieces in black.
  • The mon chosen by Toshiro was a mon popular among the samurai class, since the swards are the symbol of the samurai spirit and the three leaves represent compassion, wisdom and virtue:
WoodSorrel.png
Click to expand...
A samurai. in an UFO. in a Fallout game. But it's decent because he talks in japanese? Nope i'm not impressed.
I'm not blinded by my displeasure of Fallout 4 to the point declaring Mothership Zeta had better characters and writing. Simply no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top