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

dlotti79 said:
F4 is quite unbalanced and buggy but anyway - it still contrains the history and the atmosphere of post-apocalypse. We can discuss a lot are the factions good or not and why introduced Institute and removed Enclave, why we need Gunners and forgot NCR but there are details...
Click to expand...

At least we agree it's unbalanced and buggy. But your faction complaints are... inane? Why in the world would the NCR be mucking around on the other side of the continent when they are occupied with their own territory. The only reason the Gunners were disappointing was because they didn't do anything with them. Bethesda finally set themselves up to have interesting and unique factions and flubbed it. Same can be said of the Institute and Enclave. The Institute is even more of a let down than the Gunners, because you can actually watch Bethesda miss their shot. They didn't even try with the Gunners. Meanwhile the Enclave has been destroyed three times in the series, two of those times in Fallout 3. Wanting a return is overkill. It was stupid enough that they included the X-01 Power Armor.

On the subject of Power Armor, I did like the execution of Power Armor mechanics in Fallout 4. The implementation of Power Armor in general sucked, but the game mechanics for it felt good.
 
HarkonFourth said:
The game changes so much it's practically unrecognizable as Fallout. The gameplay is dumbed down to practically being a Call of Duty shooter, the lore is pretty much completely raped and killed and replaced with, whatever it is Bethesda thinks they are making (The Institute is the stupidest thing ever), and there is absolutely zero roleplaying. None what so ever. Who's idea was it to give the character a voice? And the stupid references to contemporary culture that they just throw in because, I dunno, laughs I guess. Yeah, the nuking the fridge was hilarious in 2008. Actually, no it never was.

Whatever. Fallout 4 isn't Fallout. Therefore, you aren't truly a Fallout fan if you love this game, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Well....I am a Fallout fan because there are PARTS of this game I absolutely loved.
I loved the IDEA of an unked Boston
I Loved the idea of robots wanting to use the USS Constitution (not the rockets and not wanting to fight the Chinese versus raider piracy)
I LOVED the set up of the main story, minus the BOS Hindenburg but it needed Boston to be a city-state to work.
I loved the idea of the Cobot House, and other than that stupid New Vegas crack it's the one really good quest the game has.
I loved that they tried to give you actual stakes, but again they shit the bed. You spouse should have survived and one of you should have had surviving family in the city.

Fallout 4's MQ is not the problem. It's the utterly shitty, non-sensical world-building. This world is not built organically from its premise. Everything in this game is the LAZIEST kind of fan service. Fallout 4 needed a total genre shift: New Vegas was smart enough to become a Western, Fallout 4 needed to be a city noir, with Fallout action and dismemberment and bunker raiding in the countryside far away from Boston.
 
fallout 1 & 2 are best but I still enjoy playing Fallout 4. I still call myself a fallout fan since I know virtually everything about the series
 
Depends on how gatekeepy you're feeling.
I'd someone liking Fo4 and only having played that is a Fallout fan just as someone who has played only the originals is. They are just different kinds of fans as Fallout is not just it's original titles. I've only played 3/NV/4 and then some of the dlc for each. I haven't played the originals and likely never will, but know a decent amount about them and enjoy the story and lore related to them. I'd say that qualifies as a fan, but different to someone who has played all of them. There are different levels of fandom. Some people are more casual and other are more hardcore. Fans all the same though.
 
I feel like it's like Star Wars fans at this point where there are clear divisions in the fanbase. "West Coast Fallout fans" and "East Coast Fallout fans" and then the odd number that like all of them, much like there's star wars fans that enjoy the entire saga.

I'm grateful for the segregation Fallout, though. West Coast Fallout is a complete package that has no effect from the rest of the series going on.

Unless they cave in and let Emil do the San Francisco game he always wanted.
 
TheHobbler said:
On the subject of Power Armor, I did like the execution of Power Armor mechanics in Fallout 4. The implementation of Power Armor in general sucked, but the game mechanics for it felt good.
Click to expand...
...Took long enough! They had years, starting before the release of FO3, of people posting in their forums how to implement PA suits, before they took the advice, and did it.

Morgan_ said:
They are just different kinds of fans as Fallout is not just it's original titles.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. Assuming the non-Interplay titles are Fallout games too, is like assuming EA's Dungeon Keeper is a DK tittle too, or that any Warhammer game is a Dawn Of War game too.

Mere use of the iconography and IP names (as these games above do) is not enough to be sequels, or part of a series. FO3 and the games beyond (even New Vegas) utterly discard the premise, play, and design tennets of the Fallout series, some in almost every possible way.

They are skinned TES games, not Fallout.

The Interplay team worked for three years on Fallout as a GURPS game, and in the end, had two weeks to alter it away from GURPS because the license was recinded. But it is still the intended game...

Fallout_Perspective.jpg


...The later titles are not.
The games compare like different cakes with the same icing; where the first one is double chocolate, the other's are frosted fruitcakes —that bounce.
 
Last edited:
I would have to disagree as there is more than just a veneer of Fallout to the later games. Not to mention most people either end up playing the original games after playing the new ones, or atleast get pulled further into the fallout universe because of their curiosity after playing the new games. It's like Catholics saying that protestants aren't real Christians when they are both Christian just in different ways. I recognize there are differences and that they are not the same type of fan, or the same type of games, but they are still fallout more than they are anything else.
 
...But can you recognize that the latter games aggressively omit what made Fallout—Fallout?

Yes, new people can love the new Fallout games. They can even love (or hate) the old ones, but it is the old ones that are Fallout; the new ones (NV aside) despise core Fallout intent & gameplay.

The new titles wear the IP for its assets only. The gameplay is unrelated, and even counter to intent.

Again with the food analogy. :mrgreen:

nutella%26vegemite.jpg


The original games are like Vegemite, while the new ones are like Nutella, and target sugar addicts.
The respective flavors [the core reasons to consume] are mutually exclusive, and wholly opposite; not just appreciated differently, but those differences ruin the other's appreciation.
(Like smearing both on the same cracker.)
 
Last edited:
For sure, I can see what you're saying and even agree. Maybe it is more important as to why they like the new Fallout's and if they have any interest in the old ones? If they like them for the loot and shoot aspect then I would say they're not a Fallout fan, but if they are there for the lore and quests and the type of Fallout pop sci-fi (even if they are different to the old ones) I would say they are a Fallout fan. I really do think though that it also depends on how gatekeepy/purity testing you're feeling past a certain point.
 
Morgan_ said:
...but if they are there for the lore and quests and the type of Fallout pop sci-fi (even if they are different to the old ones) I would say they are a Fallout fan.
Click to expand...
And here I can see your point. Yet...
That's tricky too... Bethesda have changed the setting from a future anticipated by 50's pop culture, to a future obsessed with the 50's. [IMO that invalidates their lore.]

Their whole premise is counter to Fallout lore from the outset; they haven't a valid foundation for anything they contribute.
 
Hmm, maybe so. Then again, I also love Beyond Thunderdome and think it's the best Mad Max with 2 in 2nd place, Fury Road in 3rd and then the original in last place. :lalala:


hatersgonnahate.gif

:flameon:
 
I enjoyed it as a game, when heavily modded of course. I like the way I could re-shape the game to one more appealing to my likes, the power armor representation is magnific, though is an absolute disaster of a fallout
 
Morgan_ said:
...I also love Beyond Thunderdome and think it's the best Mad Max
Click to expand...
Funfact about Thunderdome that I always thought was neat:
The Collector, the guy with the lenses who took goods at the door, was played by Frank Thring. He played Pontius Pilate in the original Ben-Hur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top