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

Discussion in 'Fallout 4' started by Sn1p3r187, Jan 1, 2016.

  1. RangerBoo

    RangerBoo Vault Fossil

    Jun 15, 2015
  2. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Sep 17, 2016
    The big problem with Fallout 4 is, in a nutshell, is very wide but very shallow. A better game would have been smaller but deeper.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  3. RangerBoo

    RangerBoo Vault Fossil

    Jun 15, 2015
    The width of a ocean but the depth of a mud puddle.
     
  4. The notorious OVB

    The notorious OVB Minster of Truth

    192
    Dec 28, 2016
    Mind you, this is the same company which proudly boasts on its Morrowind manual "The essence of every elder scrolls game has always been simple LET YOU DO WHAT YOU WANT, and make sure you have fun doing it, we don't believe a good roleplaying game should restrict you from making choices, even if they're bad ones."
     
  5. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Sep 17, 2016
    My biggest moment of frustration was the realization the dialogue for Companions after the endings was almost identical no matter which Faction you chose.

    Only mild changes between Destroyed Institute vs. Destroyed BoS.
     
  6. RangerBoo

    RangerBoo Vault Fossil

    Jun 15, 2015
    To be fair, it is a step up from Fallout 3 and Skyrim but its a major step down from Fallout New Vegas. Not only does your interactions with both your companions and the world affect your companions ending but also their fate. Obsidian does a good job of making companions feel apart of both the story and world. Wished Bethesda would learn from them with that.
     
  7. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    587
    Jan 19, 2016
    That is because games are suppose to end. Bethesda likes to pretend that you can play the game forever. A good story ends but not Skyrim and not Fallout 4. No level cap, no deadlines for quests, and no "You just saved the world! Why are you asking me for a fetch quest?." I already made a case against playing the game pass the main quest in your Skyrim thread. FO3 should have changed the ending by giving him a better heroic death (not pointless and more epic) rather than making him live.

    Did he really say that? BTW: I'll plan to listen the latest NMA podcast episode later.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  8. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Sep 17, 2016
    There's no relation to an open world and just repeating writing no matter what your statement is. That's just half-assing.

    F3's ending is also bullshit and I appreciate the ability to play beyond the main game.
     
  9. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    587
    Jan 19, 2016
    I have no idea what you mean by that. I don't understand the sentence structure of your statement.
    It is bullshit but playing the game after the main quest is a stupid trend in Bethesda titles. Obsidian had post-game content planned but they didn't have enough time to show all of the changes after 2nd Battle of Hoover Dam. Also NPCs don't want to give you quests anymore even the particularly bossy Moore.
     
  10. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Sep 17, 2016
    I'm saying that Fallout 4 repeated massive amounts of dialogue and used the same dialogue for answering your response, no matter what you said.

    You might as well have no choices at all.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  11. Supermarauder

    Supermarauder Supposed PAYDAY Gang Member

    76
    May 23, 2016
    Fallout 4 make Fallout 3 look like a masterpiece. Despite the fact that the gunplay in 4 may be better in gunplay (how guns they shoot/feel) but the damage system to enemies just sucked literally a bullet sponge simulator, Fallout 3's combat was overall tolerable and enjoyable felt like a more even FPS/RPG combat. I loved the atmosphere and the dialogue system of Fallout 3 (besides the percentage checks, those were stupid). Fallout 4 gave us a horrendous rendition and imitation of Mass Effects dialogue wheel and failed.

    PS: Also I need to say this right now. Fallout 3 was my first fallout game so I might be a little more biased when giving it some praise. (gotta give it credit for introducing me to franchise :D ).
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  12. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Sep 17, 2016
    I think Fallout 3 was awesome for reviving the IP and creating a fun game which showed new players things like the BoS, Enclave, Raiders, and ghouls.

    It was fun, energetic, and even poignant at times.
     
  13. Jogre

    Jogre It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    Honest question, why is it important to have Raiders in a game like this?

    I mean, Raiders are only really interesting if you have a gang of them like The Khans. Otherwise they are just generic bad-dudes who appear in practically every setting ever as bandits and whatnot.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  14. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Sep 17, 2016
    If you want the Mad Max feel and the idea that humanity has degenerated into ruthless degenerates. Of course, part of the problem is if you want this game to be about humanity getting better rather than worse then you're going to have a problem with Raiders even if it's only on a subconscious level.

    Raiders in F3 are a sign mankind is on its last legs, not it's first new steps.
     
  15. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    Man, this again? 200 years of "raiding" what? The grocery store?
    Even the most barbaric motherfuckers need a roof, food and to be able to thrive in some way. They don't live in shitty camps with a single bed and an ammo box, plus a campfire if they're lucky.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 4
  16. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Sep 17, 2016
    Well, they're not 200 year old Raiders. They're the current crop of raiders. Ones who have destroyed everything around them and been reduced to cannibalism.

    Things don't automatically always get better, sometimes they get worse and stay sucky.

    The Commonwealth is on its last legs and will eventually be depopulated unless the LW turns it around. It's not RL hasn't had raiders actually destroy entire civilizations.
     
  17. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    Dunno, I think there are just way too many raiders and too many peaceful and successful settlements for that to be a good point in Fallout 3 and 4. Especially in Fallout 3 the raiders are an unorganized mess that couldn't survive like that for 200 years. Either they form organized gangs to keep themselves from getting killed by the more peaceful folks, or they die out quickly. And they're way too elaborate to be completely degenerate yet. Let's face it, raiders are generic mooks for the player to mow down, there's no special thought about how "mankind is on its last legs" or whatever behind them. They're cannon fodder. I do like how Fallout 4 tried to make them into more than that with Libertalia and the Downs, although they of course failed miserably at that because they're a bunch of lazy and incompetent idiots. But the general idea to make the raiders into something less generic by giving them different and distinct bases with interesting stories from time to time (like those that fed on that food paste that turned them crazy, or the guys with the blood contract, or the guy with the mascot costume that caught rabies) was a good start. They had the potential to be a real faction, and the existence of the Combat Zone, the Downs and Libertalia make it seem like Bethesda planned to do so, but scrapped it all later on. I said it before, I'll say it again: Raiders should have been a real option for the main quest right from the start. The player has no allegiance to any of the factions, if anything the PC would probably hate the shitty world he or she is suddenly in. So why not unite the raider "tribes" and go conquer the Commonwealth to find your son? It appears that the raiders actually have the most interesting locations. Fighting arena? Nice. Robot racing ring? Why the fuck not? Maybe give you the option to construct your own robot to compete, too. And Libertalia being constructed from boats and shit was really cool, too. What does the rest of the Commonwealth have to offer? Diamond City, a shanty town that takes up maybe half of a baseball stadium. And that's basically it. So yeah, as with everything in Fallout 4, Bethesda dropped the ball there.
    But back to topic, is Fallout 4 better than Fallout 3? It did some things better than Fallout 3. It did have some good ideas, and it does look a lot better, obviously. The story, at least at first glance, is slightly less insultingly stupid, and there are actual options (not that they do much in the end, though). But they dropped the ball with the mechanics and so many other things... Still, due to the more pleasant graphics and general feel I do like Fallout 4 somewhat better than Fallout 3. But that's mostly because Fallout 3 just plays terribly, and Fallout 4, by abandoning all RPG elements, tends to be more fluid. But then again it's also supremely boring and tedious, and there's no point to anything in it.
    I guess they both suck equally.

    /edit:
    Really? I can't think of any.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 6
  18. Tiny Tim

    Tiny Tim Still Mildly Glowing

    203
    Sep 29, 2015
    I was about to say fallout 3 is better, due to it having more rpg elements, bleak atmoshere and ability to be evil.
    But i finished it again just now after many years. The main quest is so bad it's insulting. Whatever charm the game had, it lost it in the last few quests and by the ending i felt dizzy.
    I haven't finished fallout 4 but can its main quest really be any worse?
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  19. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    If they are "new" raiders, then where do they come from? Maybe a town got overrun by a wasteland pest and they disbanded? They had a war with the neighbors? Their leader got killed and they fought one another, while destroying their home thus wandering into the wasteland?
    No, they are "raider". They also can talk normally and use an array of weapons while creating their own gear.
    Also they don't eat people, not most of them. Out of that school you go to in Fo3 with corpses around (again, doesn't mean that they EAT them. Super Mutants do, as dumb that is), we don't know that.

    PEOPLE WANT A ROOF. Would you go out the street, strip naked, throw money around and then try to kill the people that go and pick it up? No, right? Then why would 3/4 of the humans in the East Coast "raid"?

    And if you mean Mongols, they did overtake a civilization. Then mixed with their people culturally and biologically. They went on and use those territories. That's how it works. And even if they themselves "dissapeared", they left an imprint on the neighbout's cultures. And on and on.

    The BOS could go on and wipe these Raiders. The Ghouls could have killed them as they don't have doctors. They would literally dissapear after a year for, simply put, being all that crazy and just kill each other. Even the New Vegas' Fiends have semblances of leaders and don't infight. And they are the most drugged people in the planet.
     
  20. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Sep 17, 2016
    The lack of attention to where Raiders come from is a big problem with Fallout 3, which devotes very little attention to the history of the setting. The only answers we ever get are that Ashur is employing Raiders to supply him with both slaves as well as food for his people in Pittsburgh.

    It depends if you think those corpses suspended from chains are just there to look cool or is their version of a larder.

    Well, most of the Raiders have bases. There's Evergreen Mills, the School, the Suepr Market, and a few other spots throughout the Capital Wasteland.

    The Mongols are notable for the fact they did eventually settle down and mix but history is full of people who just attacked, murdered everyone, and then carried off whatever they could. Tamerlane is particularly notable for the fact his policy of destroying civilizations completely but for skilled artisans he carried back at slaves was effectively the end of high Muslim culture. The Huns also are notable for the fact they were trying to do what Genghis Khan succeeded in doing but after the death of Attila, fell back into their old habits and lost everything.

    The BOS is dying out one soldier at a time due to the fact it's losing its war with the Super Mutants. Why the Super Mutants are in Washington D.C. and pressing them back to the Pentagon. Half of their soldiers have also deserted to join the Outcasts so they're only surviving due to the fact they take Wastelanders on as recruits.

    As for eventually disappearing? Probably. I'm confused at the idea that sustainable living is something you think humans are very good at as history has shown otherwise.

    The LW arrives at the worst period in Commonwealth history. Without the LW the next year would go like this:

    * The BOS gets wiped out by the Super Mutants
    * The Enclave torches the Super Mutants
    * The Enclave poisons the region/exterminates all ghouls or enslaves the surviving humans.
    * The Enclave steals the survivors of Vault 101 to be breeding subjects
    * The Raiders die of starvation after they've wiped out Megaton and Rivet City or they move out of the Capital Wasteland to other regions.
    * The Outcasts go back to California, probably to die fighting NCR or get killed by Caesar's Legion
    * The Pitt fails because there's no one left to rob or enslave.
    * The Enclave lives happily ever after in a dead ruin.