Everything wrong with Fallout 4s writing

[Walpknut]

No companion in Fo4 compares to either Marcus or Cassidy. Hell even Vic has more character and development than any of FO4's immortal pack mules.

 

[Idiot Wearing Sunglasses]

No companion in Fo4 compares to either Marcus or Cassidy. Hell even Vic has more character and development than any of FO4's immortal pack mules.

This too. Companions in 4 are not only unreactive and unable to be reacted to adequately, they're consequence-free; there's not even a (vanilla) option to have them be killable.

 

[Walpknut]

The only companion in FO4 with a halfway full quest to them other than picking locks until they open their pants to you is Valentine. But you get no actual choices in his quest, can't try to nudge him into any development. You just go to a sewer and kill an old man because a robot thinks he is a dead person. Kinda sounds like the bad ending of a better written character, then you have a sappy moment where he talks about flowers. Lame shit.

 

[Ant2242]

The only companion in FO4 with a halfway full quest to them other than picking locks until they open their pants to you is Valentine. But you get no actual choices in his quest, can't try to nudge him into any development. You just go to a sewer and kill an old man because a robot thinks he is a dead person. Kinda sounds like the bad ending of a better written character, then you have a sappy moment where he talks about flowers. Lame shit.

First things first: "other than picking locks until they open their pants to you" ...ohhh, game mechanics.

Alright now down to business: I disagree about Nick's quest. It's well written out and relatively deep. He's grappling with his and Valentine's identity. All those emotions festering over time. Coming to grips with just who he is. I also love how they added to it with Far Harbor, but I digress. You can't actually nudge him into a different quest path because there is no actual way you could.

Nick's been obsessing over this for probably a decade before you show up. We have to remember he cannot eat, sleep or get drunk. Yet what is he doing in his office when we allow him to wander? He occasionally goes to sit at his desk pretending to drink from a glass while staring at the last edition of the Boston Bugle. Eddie Winter's Face. Mocking Him.

The only way they could have improved the quest was to fix Eddie Winter himself. His bunker is bland and empty. There is no food storage, water purification, waste management, corpses, nothing. Its himself, his revolver, and a broken television.... oh, and a comical whole in the brick wall. All that security put into the door, but nothing put into the walls?

Then there is his dialogue. The character has been down there for over two hundred years. He thinks that it actually took that long for the police to find him? I'm not going to argue that Winter is mentally stable, but damn. Just give a reason for the obliviousness. They did it really, really, well with the story of Vault 118!

PS. Also the bunker is not in a sewer, it's built into/onto his legitimate business front. It's accessed from the sewers because it was connected to a smuggling route via the metro system.

 

[Walpknut]

Why wouldn't you be ble to nudge him in another direction? Boone can be nudged into different paths and the guy has a bigger issue than thining he is a dead guy and talking with a cartoonish accent. You could have been able to through his quest talk him into finding his own identity, to maybe break his spirit by pointing out he is just holding onto memories that aren't his, to use science checks to force him into a logic loop, maybe just preventing him from taking revenge by attacking him instead or maybe talking out of killing the guy by appealing to the morals of the original guy his memories come from, maybe remember his wife instead of just enabling a guy to commit cold blooded violence and it being the only path etc. It's just bad quest design and the dialogue is pretty terrible and sappy, but that is just FO4 in a nutshell.

 

[Ant2242]

Why wouldn't you be ble to nudge him in another direction? Boone can be nudged into different paths and the guy has a bigger issue than thining he is a dead guy and talking with a cartoonish accent.

But either way Boone is going after closure. You cannot stop him unless you kill him.

You could have been able to through his quest talk him into finding his own identity, to maybe break his spirit by pointing out he is just holding onto memories that aren't his, to use science checks to force him into a logic loop, maybe just preventing him from taking revenge by attacking him instead or maybe talking out of killing the guy by appealing to the morals of the original guy his memories come from, maybe remember his wife instead of just enabling a guy to commit cold blooded violence and it being the only path etc. It's just bad quest design and the dialogue is pretty terrible and sappy, but that is just FO4 in a nutshell.

Identity or personality? The latter is set to the original Nick's. As for the former that's what's being worked through at the end of the quest. In the end will it matter? Nick cannot hold onto the memories forever.

As for the question trying to get Nick to spare Winter it simply isn't going to happen. Just as you cannot argue with Boone to spare Legion. Simply because it cannot, its been two hundred years, there is no courts, or jails. If Winter lives he will continue his murderous pursuits. This is something that Nick simply cannot allow.

 

[Walpknut]

You can talk Boone out of commiting suicide and you can abandon him and the camp. Valentine's quest lacks it on all front. And it's just a simplistic fetch collecthaton quest with a kill quest at the end against a weak npc. Can Winter even do anything at that point? He is an old ghoul in some sewer, he has no resources and the only thing he seems to do post war is rot in there. A complete joke of a quest.

 

[Ben Soto]

TL;DR - Fallout 4 had shitty writing.

Wow. You've figured out the greatest mystery of our time! Fallout 4 has shitty writing! Who knew?

 

[Black Angel]

TL;DR - Fallout 4 had shitty writing.

Wow. You've figured out the greatest mystery of our time! Fallout 4 has shitty writing! Who knew?

What's with this 'sarcastic' tone? Jogre only made this thread to provide a better place to discuss about Fallout 4's writing with Tagaziel. Have you seen how Tagz defended Fallout 4's writing? He deliberately had to brings up past games writing, saying they're just as bad and therefore Fallout 4's writing is fine and, in fact, better (I'm just paraphrasing here, just look up the discussion between Tagz and Jogre on the other threads).

 

[Tagaziel]

He deliberately had to brings up past games writing, saying they're just as bad and therefore Fallout 4's writing is fine and, in fact, better (I'm just paraphrasing here, just look up the discussion between Tagz and Jogre on the other threads).

Yes, because arguing with what Fallout actually is, rather than someone's impression of what Fallout's supposed to be is... Somehow bad?

Comparing an existing game to previous entries in the series is somehow bad? Or is it perfectly acceptable, as long as you are bashing Fallout 4?

Point is, I like Fallout 4's writing and for me it alternates between fine, good, and excellent (Danse <3), but since it's Bethesda, it gets constant flak because... Uh, unreasonable standards? If you could redefine Valentine, the forums would instead be whining that you can do with words what a human couldn't do for decades.

But, of course, Bethesda can't do anything right.

And thus, NMA sinks into oblivion.

 

[Walpknut]

Writing in Fallout 4 excellent? Do you play it high?

 

[Black Angel]

Yes, because arguing with what Fallout actually is, rather than someone's impression of what Fallout's supposed to be is... Somehow bad?

And what do you, or rather Bethesda, truly know of what Fallout actually is?

Here's the thing: What Fallout actually is, is the storytelling approach that 1, 2, and NV has + proper RPG. That IS Fallout. Bethesda's approach is different; there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong with that is they forced their approach to Fallout what they've done to TES. Fallout =/= TES.

Comparing an existing game to previous entries in the series is somehow bad? Or is it perfectly acceptable, as long as you are bashing Fallout 4?

Except, your comparing to the past games was more like trying to dismiss the actual arguments made against Fallout 4. What we were talking about before had nothing to do with the past games, and then you tried to bring them up for no particular reason at all.

For instance, we were strictly speaking about how Fallout 4's endings are bad because there are only 2 variants based on whether or not you're supporting the Institute, and also based on whether or not you're male or female. It kinda means there's a total of 4 ending, except the difference between the gender are only the respective voice actor/actress now narrates the ending slides coupled with the appearance of the character, so that means there's literally only 2 endings, not 4.

And then you goes on how New Vegas 'ending' was also about whether or not you're pro-Legion or anti-Legion.

This, however, have no relevance whatsoever because me and the others were strictly speaking about the ending slides, not the events that predates it. New Vegas had different ending slides for when you're a supporter of NCR, Legion, House, or Independent Vegas; Fallout 4 doesn't have ending slides for when you're a supporter of BoS, Railroad, or Minutemen, because it combined the ending slides for them as an ending slide of being an 'anti-Institute'. That was our point. Bringing up the events of Second Battle for Hoover Dam has no relevance to the discussion, which you did.

And seriously, we were genuinely asking you where are these 'happy endings' you saw in Fallout 4. If even that means 'bashing Fallout 4', I think I'd rather not continue discussing Fallout 4 with you.

but since it's Bethesda, it gets constant flak because... Uh, unreasonable standards?

"Unreasonable"?

Proper RPG system; good dialogue system; writings that's on par or, at the very least, close enough to Fallout 1, 2, & NV; clear cut ending slides instead of the TES approach they forced upon the game.

That, unreasonable?

But, of course, Bethesda can't do anything right.

They've done the Pitt right. The best ones they've ever made for the series, the worthy addition to the canon in almost every way, including the writings where it's not black and white, and it wasn't confused with itself like the Institute.

Why can't they do that again?

 

[Tagaziel]

And what do you, or rather Bethesda, truly know of what Fallout actually is?

Two decades of playing Fallout, starting when you were still learning to speak. Knowing the game's lore like the back of my hand. Countless discussions exploring the concepts presented in the game, which also provided me with an in-depth knowledge of the story structure and systems.

I can ask you the same thing: What do you know of Fallout actually is? Because what you say tells me nothing. It's just "I don't like the game, so it sucks."

Here's the thing: What Fallout actually is, is the storytelling approach that 1, 2, and NV has + proper RPG. That IS Fallout. Bethesda's approach is different; there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong with that is they forced their approach to Fallout what they've done to TES. Fallout =/= TES.

And that storytelling is whatever you say it is, right?

Except, your comparing to the past games was more like trying to dismiss the actual arguments made against Fallout 4. What we were talking about before had nothing to do with the past games, and then you tried to bring them up for no particular reason at all.

For instance, we were strictly speaking about how Fallout 4's endings are bad because there are only 2 variants based on whether or not you're supporting the Institute, and also based on whether or not you're male or female. It kinda means there's a total of 4 ending, except the difference between the gender are only the respective voice actor/actress now narrates the ending slides coupled with the appearance of the character, so that means there's literally only 2 endings, not 4.

And then you goes on how New Vegas 'ending' was also about whether or not you're pro-Legion or anti-Legion.

This, however, have no relevance whatsoever because me and the others were strictly speaking about the ending slides, not the events that predates it. New Vegas had different ending slides for when you're a supporter of NCR, Legion, House, or Independent Vegas; Fallout 4 doesn't have ending slides for when you're a supporter of BoS, Railroad, or Minutemen, because it combined the ending slides for them as an ending slide of being an 'anti-Institute'. That was our point. Bringing up the events of Second Battle for Hoover Dam has no relevance to the discussion, which you did.

And seriously, we were genuinely asking you where are these 'happy endings' you saw in Fallout 4. If even that means 'bashing Fallout 4', I think I'd rather not continue discussing Fallout 4 with you.

The very fact there are four distinct end quests and endings in the game contradicts that point. Unless you care only about the number of cutscenes, which is an arbitrary measure to judge endings with.

Bethesda never did ending slides. The only way by which this seems bad is if you compare it with previous non-Bethesda games in the series, which as you say, is outside the purview of the discussions.

Not to mention, arbitrarily limiting the discussion to just the ending slides, ignoring everything else in the game is pretty much just bashing for the sake of bashing. Nevermind four storylines, four quests, four ways to end the game, it's only the endings that matter.

"Unreasonable"?

Proper RPG system;
good dialogue system;
writings that's on par or, at the very least, close enough to Fallout 1, 2, & NV;
clear cut ending slides instead of the TES approach they forced upon the game.

That, unreasonable?

Number one is cute, given that it would be a first for the series (well, second, FNV did pretty good there; the glorification of SPECIAL is predicated on ignorance of the actual design of the first game, which was steeped in the much more replayable GURPS, rather than one-size-fits-all-and-does-everything diplosniper).

Number two is personal preference and you can change it arbitrarily to fit whatever you don't like (not to mention you forget that the vast, vast, vast majority of NPCs throughout the games you cite in Fo1/2/NV have very shallow dialogue trees).

Number three is pretty much what I said: You can't define what's "close enough to Fo1/2/NV", but you still expect a game should adhere to it, because

Number four is also personal preference. I don't mind the absence of ending slides. Hell, if you remove ending slides, it becomes obvious that much of Fallout 1/2/NV don't actually have consequences for the choices you make. That is, unless you actually think on how they impact the world at large.

But that's, by your own statement, irrelevant, because "no endings", apparently.

They've done the Pitt right. The best ones they've ever made for the series, the worthy addition to the canon in almost every way, including the writings where it's not black and white, and it wasn't confused with itself like the Institute.

Why can't they do that again?

They quite did.

 

[Jogre]

Two decades of playing Fallout, starting when you were still learning to speak. Knowing the game's lore like the back of my hand. Countless discussions exploring the concepts presented in the game, which also provided me with an in-depth knowledge of the story structure and systems.

"I was here longer, therefore I know what it's supposed to be better than you"

You would immediately dismiss that as a fallacy if anyone here used it, but because it benefits your argument you can use it.

Not to mention, arbitrarily limiting the discussion to just the ending slides, ignoring everything else in the game is pretty much just bashing for the sake of bashing. Nevermind four storylines, four quests, four ways to end the game, it's only the endings that matter.

I mean, four railroady questlines over which you have very limited, almost 0 control over the direction they go(Compared to previous games where every main quest event could be approached in different ways, and you could take it at your own pace)

Also, at the very least we should be seeing how our choices paid off. It's nice to see what effects the choices we made had on the wider world, could lead to us regretting our decisions, or wanting to replay the game to see how it could've gone differently. If we didn't have the build to save Necropolis, it could lead to regret that we couldn't save them from dehydration, if we treated Dean Domino the wrong way, we may want to see how it would have paid off to treat him differently.

Fallout 4 just has us choose a faction(None of which have any long-term plans, or convincing arguements, or anything), and then doesn't even bother to tell us what said faction means for the wasteland, how our interactions with individual towns pays off.

Number one is cute, given that it would be a first for the series (well, second, FNV did pretty good there; the glorification of SPECIAL is predicated on ignorance of the actual design of the first game, which was steeped in the much more replayable GURPS, rather than one-size-fits-all-and-does-everything diplosniper).

Are you seriously arguing Fallout 4 has better RPG elements then previous Fallout games?

Look at the Khan Base in Fallout 1, and see how much your build affects your interactions there. Seriously, just look at it for just a moment. That's a pretty generic "Rescue a girl from Raiders" quest, but such a simple quest has so many different responses.

A high luck character can be mistaken for Garl Death-Hand's father, an Unarmed Character can defeat Garl in one-on-one unarmed combat for Tandi, a High-Speech character can convince him to back down, a character with a good barter skill could get a good deal when bargaining for her.

Your character build literally means the way you approach this quest differs greatly.

Fallout 4 has a choice of static combat bonuses arbitrarily tied to different SPECIAL scores. The most difference your character build could make in the vast majority of quests is whether your Charisma is high enough to bypass the final battle in a dungeon you've already had to fight through, or whether you get extra caps for completing a quest.

How you could argue that Fallout 4 does the RPG elements better, when build effects barely anything beyond combat, is utterly beyond me.

Number two is personal preference and you can change it arbitrarily to fit whatever you don't like (not to mention you forget that the vast, vast, vast majority of NPCs throughout the games you cite in Fo1/2/NV have very shallow dialogue trees).

Personal Preference?, So a dialogue system which limits you to at most 4 dialogue options, and frequently goes to less, rarely if ever allows you to ask long chains of questions like you could in previous Fallout games, doesn't let you even see what you are going to read, ect. Is personal preference?

No, the Fallout 4 Dialogue System is pretty much objectively worse. I don't like to use objectively, but honestly the dialogue system limits the scale of interaction you can have with, and offers nothing good in return.

And you say that the vast majority of NPCs in 1/2/NV have very shallow dialogue trees(Even though lots in New Vegas could result in long conversations about there backstory, the wasteland politics, ect.), and somehow think it's acceptable, to take the few number of NPCs who made the games good and fun by having intricate interactions

I mean, look at the interaction you can have with Marcus(Who is better written than any Fallout 4 character combined tbh): You can ask him questions about the founding of Jacobstown, react frightened to see a Supermutant and assume he's going to attack you, report crimes to him, then once you get him to tell you the story you can ask him multiple questions about the Unity, about Jacob, and about the Vault Dweller.

Compared to Fallout 4s interactions where every interaction goes down roughly the same route, there are only 1 or 2 additional questions you can ask, and you are literally unable to inquire about one quest when you are halfway through another. Want to give the Brotherhood Paladin a holodisk without informing her that the Institute are about to attack Mass Fusion?, Tough, it is literally beyond this dialogue system's capabilities.

Number four is also personal preference. I don't mind the absence of ending slides. Hell, if you remove ending slides, it becomes obvious that much of Fallout 1/2/NV don't actually have consequences for the choices you make. That is, unless you actually think on how they impact the world at large.

A. I'm sorry, but Fallout 2 literally allows you to join the Slaver's Guild in the second town in the game, which will completely change how you are treated for the entire first act of the game, even up to Vault City(By making it easier to get a day pass), and NCR(Vortis is far more open and willing to hire you, the NCR Rangers are completely unwilling to talk to you). A game that allows you to make a major decision in the second town in the game that will effect future interactions doesn't actually have consequences for actions?

B. So it's better to have no long term consequences for your actions beyond an offhand comment here and there, and towns that will forgive you 3 days later, then it is to have a narration explaining the fates of each town, and how your actions made a difference?

They quite did.

I mean, I've got a response for every defence you used of it on this thread, but you've yet to respond, and are assuming you've won because you think I'm too stupid to bother with.

 

[0wing]

Second coming or what, but Fallout: Nevada was made by three guys and a composer in about six years. Frontier is alot bigger gem but also looks promising. Just sayin'. Making a Fallout RPG that serves both camps doesn't require much awesome intelligence, only devotion and the ability to know and "feel" the material. Obsidian pathed the way already.

 

[Jogre]

Got a few more things to add to this list.

• What was the point of the whole pre-war having a spouse, being a law-graduate/soldier thing?, Like it added nothing to the experience. For the most part it's limiting your characters interaction with the world for no apparent reason. You could have literally removed all that stuff, said you were a Vault Dweller looking for there son, and it wouldn't have been worse. Apparently Bethesda doesn't understand Checkhov's Gun, and adding pointless scenes that they never intend to properly use for anything is A-Ok.
• 15 Minutes after getting the place in the Vault the bombs fall. What a coincidence. It's almost like it's not logically thought out, but there to get that pre-war sequence(which may as well be pointless since you get 0 control over how things go down, and don't see anything you didn't already know about pre-war life) over and done with.
• The first quest in which you meet the Minutemen is about as lackluster as they come. Instead of thinking of a proper conflict to introduce for the first faction we meet(Like how Fallout 1 had the Khans and interesting ways to approach them, how Fallout 2 had the cattle rustling and allowed you to help the Dunton Brothers rustle cattle, How New Vegas had the Powder Gangers), instead we get generic Raiders, and a fight with a Deathclaw.
• What was the point of Nick Valentine's mandatory involvement in the main quest? I mean, they could have had the courtesy of letting you explore on your own, find other clues, or whatever else to get you to Kellog. Instead they force an entire Vault sequence, that adds nothing of note to the storyline, and introduces a bland Noir companion whose only interesting because he's a robot.
• You reach Kellog, and there's no option to go "I don't want to fight" or "Can't we talk about this", like, at all. Who cares if you've built a pacifist character?, Your character, in that moment, has no option but to be agressive to this guy whose been telling you to go back and give up, and that he understands you. Case In Point: Even Frank Horrigan has a "Can't we talk about this?" Option that always fails, because the devs realised that not every character is a headstrong, always aggresive type. Why can't we at least have something like that here?
• Didn't meet Dogmeat in your quest?, That's ok, Dogmeat will track you down across the entire Wasteland and suddenly appear outside Nick Valentine's door, for plot convenience. Seriously, what the fuck? This is a clear example of the writers not being bothered to think of alternate ways to get round quests.
• I'm tired of people cheering how the Brotherhood are back to there roots. They're fucking not, Brotherhood ideology in 4 has nothing to do with Brotherhood ideology in classic Fallout. They have none of the isolationist charm or the collecting old technology to preserve it or anything. Fallout 4 just made them genocidal, and assumed that any change to make them edgier makes them have the same charm as before.

 

[R.Graves]

The very fact there are four distinct end quests and endings in the game contradicts that point.

Oooh 4 endings. What's that in comparison to new vegas 186 unique ending slides?

I'll tell you what, it's fuckin embarrassing.

And really there's two. There's only four if you count the narrorators as being different enough to warrant being called a seperate ending. Which btw it's not. Fucking GTAV has more endings than fallout 4.

If we count the gender of the protagonist as a seperate ending then new vegas has around twice as many endings as 186.

 

[0wing]

Oooh 4 endings. What's that in comparison to new vegas 186 unique ending slides?

These endings are actual movies with narration, not some static pictures, alright? Show some respect to franchise holders, peasant. /s

I'm tired of people cheering how the Brotherhood are back to there roots. They're fucking not, Brotherhood ideology in 4 has nothing to do with Brotherhood ideology in classic Fallout. They have none of the isolationist charm or the collecting old technology to preserve it or anything. Fallout 4 just made them genocidal, and assumed that any change to make them edgier makes them have the same charm as before.

Tbh, there's nothing to hide from in commonwealth for BoS as it is intentionally written to be a always hostile playground of destruction with some farmers and settlements as an exception. The only viable defense is attacking first. The problem lies elsewhere, the world around BoS. Blame Todd Howard or whoever ordered BGS to force a first person shooter upon players.

 

[Hassknecht]

I really felt they missed out on the Minutemen and their story. At the Corvega Factory you learn that some raiders are also trying to get Mama Murphy's "sight", and at Libertalia you hear more about how the Minutemen went belly-up. Libertalia was a pretty cool location, and so was Quincy. Sadly, nothing came from them but being full of respawning raiders/reskinned raiders. Ok, Libertalia was heavily designed as a linear dungeon, but Quincy could have been a cool second large city.
Fallout 4 missed out on that, it would have been really nice to retake Quincy with the Minutemen and turn it into a peaceful city again. The way the highway is part of the city makes it really kinda cool, but no, all the existing shops there are just for show, because unless you have a mod installed it will only ever be full of hostile people.
Speaking of potentially cool locations that are only ever full of hostiles, what about the Downs (nice idea!) and the Combat Zone? It's really noticable how much was left on the cutting room floor.
That's my main problem with the writing in Fallout 4. So many missed opportunities. Not just in the writing, but in every aspect of the game. There are a lot of good ideas, but every single good idea is bogged down by lackluster execution.
Power armors. Could have been much more involved and interesting. Even a major plot point for the Minutemen and BoS. Also, power armor gangs and civilian use like Proctor Ingram or construction work.
Settlement system. Would be nice if you could actually settle new places or reconquer places like Quincy or Libertalia instead of the billion tiny and pointless settlements. Also, fuck the necessary micromanagement. Why is the wasteland incapable of getting shit done on their own?
Weapons. Fallout 2-esque naming problems aside, the modification system is somewhat nice. But why remove different ammo types and just add magic receivers?
Layered armor system: Not too much wrong here, although basically all vanilla armors look like shit. Especially combat armor, which looks like so much metal slapped on tiny portions of the body that it's just ridiculous.
Quests. Way too many boring fetch quests, waaaaay too many repeating "Radiant" quests. Some quests are cool, though, but the game relies on radiant quests way too much.
Companions. Huge step up from Fallout 3, but a huge step down from New Vegas as well. Some are quite nice, and their quests are good, but the generic romance option just feels odd and takes away from their personalities. Also, gaining affection for some is waaaaay to easy and just weird. Why does picking locks make your panties wet, Piper/Cait? Also, barely any choices in their personal quests and thus no changes upon completion besides a perk. Meh.
Cities. Diamond City is cool, but seriously, only one large city in the game? I guess you can count the Airport and the Institute to some degree, but really, Diamond City is the only proper (vanilla) city that wasn't build by you, besides the tiny and pointless Goodneighbor and Bunker Hill. I really wished there had been some development in the settlements without the player's intervention (like the Sim Settlements mod. Really good, btw), and more actual cities. And there are some really interesting locations. Quincy, as I mentioned earlier, has great potential. Libertalia. That shipwreck near Warwick Homestead. The other half of fucking Diamond City, which is apparently just empty.
The story. Not too bad a start, and I commend Bethesda that they went and tried something new for them, and that's writing a more personal story. Too bad this means they had to railroad the story to the point that a dog teleports to your side and Nick magically knows its name despite never having seen it before.
Not to mention the missed opportunities to actually mess with the player with the synths and all that. Let the player be a synth (or not), for example. With such a topic, the opportunities are endless. But no, we get a rather generic "Gotta find my son, oh my son is older than I thought and is behind the not-so-evil faction" story. Meh. Even had to shoehorn in some magic cybernetics for Captain Crunch not to age so the BIG REVEAL would be BIG. Meeeh.

Fallout 4 had good ideas. Some even work out well. And the game does look ok. But all in all, with so much content being lackluster, plain lazy or just cut? I can't say it's actually a good game. It's enjoyable, brainless fun for a while, like Skyrim, but the fun doesn't last as long. In Skyrim you don't have to build the cities yourself, and there are at least some more different types of dungeons. Fallout 4 doesn't quite suck, but to me, it's mediocre at best. Considering that Bethesda did try and learn from New Vegas and, in many aspects, failed miserably, it's actually quite sub par. Because it could have been great. But that would have required work and passion, and I feel that the lack of that really oozes from Fallout 4 a bit too often.

 

[0wing]

Bunker Hill.

Let's not kid ourselves, Bunker Hill is a settlement like the other 30, only bigger and with more build-up and presence in main quest. Sounds like a good and proper settlement which this game lacks.

And why the hell Sanctuary Hills is not a settlement with an actual community? There are some workbenches left for player character, who abandoned them? Romans?

And why we can't reform Concord into a second/third/whatever big city with actual content unlocked as a reward for caring for it?