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

[Risewild]

I forgot about the bobbleheads. But unless you know where they are and actively seek them out you ain't getting 10 in all SPECIAL within a few hours. You also went out with the specific purpose to get them to 10 and in a way grinded for that specific purpose.

You implied (or at least that's what I've interpreted from your posts) that it was easy to just whip it all up to 10 within mere hours, as if the player doesn't even have to try. Which is flat out wrong. Yes, it can happen. Yes, it is easy if you know what to do and aim for specifically that. But then you're at level 34 or 43 (depending on whether or not you went for the bobbleheads) and now you got tier one modded weapons and no damage modifier perks which means that combat will be a total chore.

Fallout 4's system is shit. I dislike that we can level up stats. But it is still about choice and consequence. You 'can' level up your stats to 10 if you know what to do and go for specifically that, but it'll gimp your character in pretty much everything else and by that level it will slow down to a crawl.

Well in my first post I said it was "Harder to permanently increase SPECIAL values" in FO3 than FO4. Which it is.
On my second post I admit I didn't thought how people might interpret my words. By a few hours I meant around 40-50 hours, which for me is a few hours when you play FO4.
I am not a super player and I did it when I wanted to make all SPECIAL 10. So when someone wants to do it, it is possible.
Now I asked my friends who still play FO4 and one told me he can reach level 35 in 24 real time hours (although picking perks of course) and my other friend said he doesn't know about reaching that level but his level 60 survival mode character has 118 hours invested in it and he admits he spends a lot of time in settlement building mode to try and make what he calls "perfect settlements".
Now lets say that a player that does not want to make a character without perks and get gimped like you said is playing, it is still possible to level 1 SPECIAL and get 1 perk every other level, the player will need 34 level of special and 33 levels of perks it is a character level 68 and I doubt it will be gimped in any way. It will probably take less than 150 hours specially if the player focus on doing quests and doesn't spend much time at all in settlements and crafting (I rounded the hours up while using a rough estimate of a player levelling once every 2 hours in average which means 136 hours), if a player plays 5 hours a day it will take 30 days of playing which is 1 month. Now if the player gets 2 SPECIAL points and then 1 perk every 3 levels it will take him 34 SPECIAL levels and 17 Perk levels which is total character level 52 and still the character will not be gimped because it still has 17 perks and with the added bonus of being able to pick the "best perks" because they will not be locked by SPECIAL value requirement and the best ranks usually require higher levels to pick anyway.
Anyway my point is that it is still not hard to level SPECIAL stats in FO4. We don't see many players with 10 on everything because of my first point in the list post, FO4 SPECIAL does not really matter as much as in FO3 so players get perks instead otherwise like you said it gimps the characters.
Although to be fair FO4 is not that hard even with a gimped character thanks to abundant Power Armor and Fusion Cores, stealth boy usage, even just plain stealth usage since it is so broken in FO4, critical hit mechanic, VATS, companions, etc. Not to mention it is possible to farm a couple Legendary bosses and get a nice legendary weapon and you will not have much difficulty.

 

[Gizmojunk]

By a few hours I meant around 40-50 hours, which for me is a few hours when you play FO4.

A few hours, means two or three, to almost everyone else.

*If I stopped someone to ask them a few questions... it wouldn't be forty or fifty.

 

[welsh]

So if Fallout 3 was, well... crap, and we then say that Fallout 4 is..... well... what? Worse than crap? Crappier? And if so by what scale of crappiness?
And you guys don't endorse it- so I don't have to buy it? Or should I wait?

 

[Gizmojunk]

It depends on what you want from the game(s).
I cannot endorse any Fallout title past Tactics, for gameplay reasons; and tactics is a poor RPG IMO ~though I doubt it was intended to be much of one.

FO3 is a poor RPG, for the same reason as Tactics; that or they don't know what an RPG is.

FO3 was a class A Franken-Shooter. From what I hear, FO4 [aside from the settlement mini-game] is just a shooter; as much of an RPG as Nolf2 ~which isn't one.

Spoiler

 

[welsh]

Gizmo- honestly, I haven't played Fallout 3- my PC won't run it for some damn reason and I suspect I never will, in part because of the negative reaction from players here. I'm of mixed feelings about Fallout New Vegas, but have been enjoying the mods. It is a sad thing if FO 4 is weaker than 3. And for all its flaws, I kind of enjoyed Tactics, but that's a very different game.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I would say that Tactics is far closer to form than any Fallout title after it [sequel or not], but Tactics was a mission & squad based RTS/hybrid, centered on combat... It was mechanically similar to Fallout, but just barely; outside of combat, ~which... if played using the Turn based option, I'd consider it having the best combat in the series. All of the Bethesda titles (including Obsidian's New Vegas, under Bethesda's leash) were essentially TES [the mechanics of] set using the Fallout IP as a backdrop, rather than proper Fallout games. (And I don't just mean for being first person/ non-Isometric, I mean precepts and priority-wise.)

If you've not played Fallout, or Fallout 2, I highly recommend them both; they are different from Tactics, and they are the root of the series.

*NV was in part made by ex Fallout 2 devs. I would describe NV as a decent ½ step back towards Fallout 2, from FO3. Which is probably as far as they could stray from FO3, and still keep Bethesda happy.

 

[likaq]

Fallout 3 is just a shooter under the guise of being an RPG, Fallout 4 is obviously the same, but with actually competent combat.
Fallout 3 had no narrative choice, you would always fight alongside the shitty SJW abomination that was the east coast BoS, Fallout 4 offered 4 factions and made the BoS Great Again.:mrpresident: It also didn't suffer from the worst ending known to man. FO4 also didn't commit any unforgivable sins like turning Harold into a tree, or be an overall unoriginal derivative carbon ripoff of the first two Fallout games filled with nothing but failed re-imaginings. It's offerings may not be great, but it added something, anything, whereas the most we got from FO3 was Mutated mudcrabs.
Fallout 3 had cardboard unmemorable shit companions and characters, Fallout 4's companions aren't great but leagues above the trash in Fo3.
FO4 may be a pretty shitty RPG and a poor Fallout game, but so was 3, at least 4 has decent combat and an expansive crafting system to compensate.
FNV >>>>>>>> FO4 > FO3
I mean, when's the last time you played FO3? It was the most incompetent, ugly, and clunky shooter/RPG in existence. At the least you can say that FO4 had a colour palette that didn't look like Supermutant diarrhea.

Does anyone agree with guy from rpgcodex?

 

[Crni Vuk]

What do you mean agree? Fallout 3 IS a shooter under the guise of being an RPG. How could one even doubt that?

 

[likaq]

What do you mean agree?

According to rpgcodex guy f4 > f3.

 

[Gizmojunk]

According to rpgcodex guy f4 > f3.

A better —what?
Better defacement of franchise? Certainly

Better at what FO3 was intended to be? Very possibly; and to be expected. Bethesda learns from their past efforts. I would bet that FO4 is more like what they wanted for FO3 to be.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, if you're looking in to shooter mechanics and FPS gameplay, than I guess F4 could certainly be seen as an 'improvement' to Fallout 3. But only a cynic would call that an improvement to Fallout as a whole. Making the game a better shooter is certianly the way to go, if you're following the Bethesdian school of thought, but it certainly is a new low point in the history of Fallout.

 

[R.Graves]

Well, if you're looking in to shooter mechanics and FPS gameplay, than I guess F4 could certainly be seen as an 'improvement' to Fallout 3. But only a cynic would call that an improvement to Fallout as a whole. Making the game a better shooter is certianly the way to go, if you're following the Bethesdian school of thought, but it certainly is a new low point in the history of Fallout.

And yet its an actual downgrade in terms of shooting mechanics to its direct predecessor.

 

[Crni Vuk]

In which way?

 

[joevonzombie]

I think Strife from '96 is better at being what Bethesda intended their Fallout games to be.

 

[Norzan]

Is Fallout 4 better than 3? Doesn't matter, they're both terrible in some unique ways and in some similar ways.

 

[CaptJ]

Does anyone agree with guy from rpgcodex?

I don't.

Fallout 3 is just a shooter under the guise of being an RPG

True.

, Fallout 4 is obviously the same, but with actually competent combat.

Not really.

Fallout 3 had no narrative choice, you would always fight alongside the shitty SJW abomination that was the east coast BoS,

I wouldn't call East Coast BoS a SJW faction.

Fallout 4 offered 4 factions and made the BoS Great Again.:mrpresident: It also didn't suffer from the worst ending known to man.

All of the factions were terrible and I don't think suddenly changing the East Coast BoS to assholes fixes anything. Yes, FO3 will always have the worst ending in the series but FO4 has the cringiest delivery of the line "War... war never changes.".

FO4 also didn't commit any unforgivable sins like turning Harold into a tree, or be an overall unoriginal derivative carbon ripoff of the first two Fallout games filled with nothing but failed re-imaginings. It's offerings may not be great, but it added something, anything, whereas the most we got from FO3 was Mutated mudcrabs.

Both are ruined the canon in unforgivable ways but I guess FO3 did more damage with the aliens causing the Great War thing.

Fallout 3 had cardboard unmemorable shit companions and characters, Fallout 4's companions aren't great but leagues above the trash in Fo3.
FO4 may be a pretty shitty RPG and a poor Fallout game, but so was 3, at least 4 has decent combat and an expansive crafting system to compensate.

I will not praise attempts to enhance the wander, shoot, and loot cycle.

FNV >>>>>>>> FO4 > FO3
I mean, when's the last time you played FO3? It was the most incompetent, ugly, and clunky shooter/RPG in existence. At the least you can say that FO4 had a colour palette that didn't look like Supermutant diarrhea.

FO:BoS was worse but I don't care because everyone hates it too.

In which way?

I guess the removal of different ammo types, retarded gun effects, removal of actually unique weapons, AP cost of VATS is solely based on the weapon's weight, and charging for criticals.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I guess the removal of different ammo types, retarded gun effects, removal of actually unique weapons, AP cost of VATS is solely based on the weapon's weight, and charging for criticals.

Yeesh!
That's actually worse than I thought. I've not played the game, and don't plan to... Now with even more reasons [against it] than first assumed.

 

[Risewild]

I guess the removal of different ammo types, retarded gun effects, removal of actually unique weapons, AP cost of VATS is solely based on the weapon's weight, and charging for criticals.

And don't forget the removal of DT, the super bullet sponges that regenerate all their life after a while, the perks that probably 95% of all of them are just weapon damage bonuses, the pacifier perk that only works when you point a gun at the enemy, so you can't use it with melee or unarmed weapons, weapons like paddle balls and nuka-cola enhanced mini nukes launcher, weapon effects like not consuming ammunition (look at the Aeternus weapon for example), flamer of freezing, anti-ghoul radiation damage weapons, a boss where you have to use a water gun (that provides infinite ammo, because when you un-equip it it will give you a water bottle ammo, so you just un-equip it and then equip it again) to be able to defeat him (I can't make this shit up), weapons and ammo made from Nuka-Cola, etc.

They turned the combat and anything related to fighting in FO4 into a theme park ride of craziness and complete nonsense. This is what Fallout is today...

 

[YeeCop]

Err... In some aspects, yes. Fallout 4 had a lot more interesting character than FO3. You can tell Bethesda took notes from the New Vegas companions and tried to implement character development into FO4 companions (because, let's face it, FO3 companions are wooden...). For the most part Bethesda pulled it off. I loved having Danse and Valentine as my companions.
Fallout 4 also at least had the decency to not call itself a role-playing game. Although I do commend FO3 for trying to be one at least.
On the contrary, FO3 for the most part stayed out of lore contradictions, only hinting the Vault Dweller and Chosen One. Bethesda knew they were gonna piss off the OG fans, so they placed their game in D.C. and made it so you can treat it like a Fallout spin-off (that's what Bethesda Fallouts are to me: spin-offs)
Fallout 4 was like "fuck the classics" and did everything from "alien cities in the Mojave" to "uhhh pre-war Enclave power armor lmao".

 

[0wing]

I guess the removal of different ammo types, retarded gun effects, removal of actually unique weapons, AP cost of VATS is solely based on the weapon's weight, and charging for criticals.

No, the basic damage calucation was butchered. The flashy animations and sound effects are great smoke effect for eyes, but actual shooting is still crippled.