Can you really call yourself a Fallout fan if you love Fallout 4, honestly?

I loved Fallout 4, but not to the same extent as FO3. To be honest I can sort of understand why you guys hate Bethesda and their Fallouts. I LOVED Dead Space and Dead Space 2, but then EA put their hands all over Dead Space 3 and mostly ruined what would have an amazing game. Now the DS franchise is permanently dead, no DS4.
 
G-Hombre said:
I loved Fallout 4, but not to the same extent as FO3. To be honest I can sort of understand why you guys hate Bethesda and their Fallouts. I LOVED Dead Space and Dead Space 2, but then EA put their hands all over Dead Space 3 and mostly ruined what would have an amazing game. Now the DS franchise is permanently dead, no DS4.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, are you a troll account that's gonna attach Dead Space being a dead franchise to every thread topic? I'm genuinely curious to see how far you get.
 
And I love, LOVE Mass Effect 1 and I think ME2 is a real miscarriage. but I'm a minority and you can bet your ass I'm a true fan of that franchise.
 
Pwener said:
Oh boy, are you a troll account that's gonna attach Dead Space being a dead franchise to every thread topic? I'm genuinely curious to see how far you get.
Click to expand...

No point in replying to this because you've seen my other post, but what the hell. No I won't, I just made that one comment and the other post.
 
So. I understand that 4 really fucked with the other games and retconned a bunch. I'm not disagreeing. However, if you scrutinize it and hold it up against the game you admire most, of course it's gonna fall short. I prefer to think of the games as individuals, set in the same universe. In this sense, I can enjoy the best of all of them without finding myself thinking "Oh man. This isn't as good as [Insert Title Here]." I think 4 is measured to harshly, and everyone has a strict idea of what it's supposed to be. It's not supposed to be anything but what it is. If you didn't like it, I respect that. Don't play it. Each game is good and bad in its own regards. For example, I hated Interplay's graphic style. The stories were nice, the characters were cool, and it was fresh. But I could not get past how ugly it was.
 
On its own Fallout 4 is absolutely terrible. It's a much worse version of others games that do the same.

Also this "look at the game on its own" doesn't work when we know the highs the franchise can reach, so when a game is truly terrible people will criticize it heavily.
 
Norzan said:
Also this "look at the game on its own" doesn't work when we know the highs the franchise can reach, so when a game is truly terrible people will criticize it heavily.
Click to expand...

So, what makes the (or any Fallout game] game horrible? I'm willing to admit, easily, that recycling the Creation Engine was a terrible idea. They need to improve. It was revolutionary in 2008 with Fallout 3, but it's laughable now. Aside from that, I thought the story, even if it did change some continuity, was beautifully told. The music was astounding, and there were some moments of gameplay that captured my heart. There is always going to be something that somebody thinks is bad. It doesn't mean it was bad, you just think it is. In the end, though, it boils down to opinions.
 
Fallout 3 already looked dated in 2008. Metroid Prime 1 from 2002 looks better and it was 6 years prior and on the previous generation.
 
Norzan said:
Fallout 3 already looked dated in 2008. Metroid Prime 1 from 2002 looks better and it was 6 years prior and on the previous generation.
Click to expand...

And Ocarina of Time looked like garbage, whereas Super Mario 64 was released 2 years before and was way better, graphics wise. Your point?
 
R.Graves said:
No some things are objectively bad.
Click to expand...

And herein lies the problem. My friend, that word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means. If you don't like it, or it doesn't function how you want, it's not automatically 'Objectively bad'. There is no 'Objectively Bad' when it comes to evaluating things such as games. Objectively refers to the fact that it is a universal constant. For example, the Sun it objectively a star. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, the Sun is a flaming concoction of gases that qualifies as a star. Subjectively, Fallout 3 and 4 are bad.
 
Atomic_Spawned said:
And Ocarina of Time looked like garbage, whereas Super Mario 64 was released 2 years before and was way better, graphics wise. Your point?
Click to expand...
Except it wasn't, unless you don't have eyes. No way in hell does Ocarina of Time look way worse than Mario 64. Fallout 3, when compared to even just the games at the time, looks worse. And i mean character models, color palette, textures and other graphic qualities. You also compared two games from the same generation, while i compared two games from two different generations.
 
They may be different time gaps, sure, but remember Bethesda was also just beginning their Fallout venture. It was rough, but people have loved worse games. It's not simply a matter of looks though. I enjoyed Fallout as a First Person Shooter, because it made it feel more real. I get that the fans of older Fallout titles hate what's new and different because they didn't want it to change, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad. Remember, everybody's got rose tinted goggles on.
 
Atomic_Spawned said:
My friend, that word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means. If you don't like it, or it doesn't function how you want, it's not automatically 'Objectively bad'.
Click to expand...
True but even ignoring my feelings about Bethesda it's still objectively bad because the definition of objectively is actually

"in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions"

And the game is poorly designed has some of the most horrible writing in recent gaming memory and couldn't jeep to continuity if it was chained to the fallout Bible. Those are objective facts.

So you're wrong. The whole art is subjective concept needs to die. And is only really so prevelant because some asshole put a urinal in an art exhibit and said look it's art. Which is kinda what you're doing with fallout 4 right now.
 
@R.Graves Like it or not, Fallout 4 is objectively good for mindless fun. It’s like Skyrim; you don’t play F4 for a thought provoking plot, or genius writing. You play it for the mindless grind and for SHAUUUUN
 
Atomic_Spawned said:
I get that the fans of older Fallout titles hate what's new and different because they didn't want it to change, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad. Remember, everybody's got rose tinted goggles on.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, he has began this phase. Doesn't take long to reach this "argument".

I at least hate bad things, not that they are new and different. Wanna know a game i like and others do here as well? New Vegas. Wanna know why we liked it? Because it has actual good writing, characters, world building, respects the lore and continuity of 1 and 2, things that made the first two great. 3, 4 and 76 do none of this. And guess what? New Vegas is a 3D Fallout game. Fuck, i played 1 and 2 AFTER playing 3 and New Vegas, so that rose tinted glasses bullshit can go to hell. I started playing the series in 2011. 3 was my first Fallout and i noticed how truly bad it was then.

I was honestly surprised another of these type of people hadn't showed up in a while. Telling us that everything is subjective, we hate Bethesda, and we are living in the past with rose tinted glasses. At least it makes the forum more lively, i'm having fun.
 
@R.Graves One man's trash is another's treasure. The whole 'Art is subjective' concept is 100% true. There's no way you can definitively tell me that a piece of art is 'bad' because there is no scale by which to measure it. It's too unique. And here's the rub. No matter what anybody says, myself included, there will never be an objective criticism of something like this. There is always going to be some sort of issue or problem a person has with something, and they will always be biased.

On the subject of continuity, I personally (This is my opinion) think Bethesda may have altered it to distance the newer entries from the older ones. That being said, the Interplay Fallout games are not really canon in the Bethesda titles. Sure, the events are, but not really any of the games. That's part of why they made New Vegas, to sate the fans of the first two without explicitly connecting it to the newer games.
 
R.Graves said:
This sentence doesn't make sense because you're claiming objective fact on your subjective experience. I did not have fun. Therefore the game isn't objectively fun. Check mate atheists.
Click to expand...
Alright, and on the same note, it being not fun is your subjective experience.
 
R.Graves said:
This sentence doesn't make sense because you're claiming objective fact on your subjective experience. I did not have fun
Click to expand...

Agree entirely. Fallout 4 and Skyrim are too dumb to be fun for me even if you switch your brain off. I'm too irritated by them, more so skyrim than fo4 but that's just me. I'll agree with Aure on the subjective point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top