Fallout 4: A short review

AccountNameM

AccountNameM

?
I'm fucking bored and want to post my honest thoughts on Fallout 4. Even though this will be a short review, I'll try to cover every aspect of the game.

Storyline:
Now, I was pretty intrigued by the storyline up until the quest "Institutionalised". Overall, it was enjoyable and interesting, but not nearly as good as some other stories I've read (Heart of Darkness etc), as most games are. Really, I don't really have any major criticism, but the whole synth dilemma shit didn't appeal to me as much as it did to other people.

Gameplay:
The general feel of the gunplay was nice, but the fact I can't roleplay as someone who eats guns is atrocious, and really upsets my need to fantasise in a fucking game.

In all seriousness, the bullet sponges were kind of annoying, and the fact I can't play on Survival difficulty due to how boring the game is when it's enabled is a bit disappointing.

When compared to other Fallout games, the gameplay is amazingly better. The clunkiness of NV and 3 really did piss me off, and the overall smoothness made the game 10 times more enjoyable for me.

Settlement Building:
I rarely touched this feature, but from what I've heard, it's pretty good. I'm not really one for building shit in video games, but everyone has different tastes.

Writing:
This aspect of the game is highly subjective, and in my opinion, was pretty good.

When someone says that x has bad writing, they usually refer to plot holes (at least on this website, from what I've seen). I for one didn't really see any major plot holes that affected my enjoyment of the game. The dialogue of npcs was top notch, and each voice actor did a great job, as each conversation was realistic and didn't ruin my immersion.

Emil what's-his-name isn't really as bad a writer as people make him out to be, but this sort of thing is up to debate.

Dialogue Wheel:
The dialogue wheel has several pros and cons. For one, the camera thing was really good, but the the limitations that a voice actor brings limits the amounts of shit you can actually do. I for one don't care about the changes, as I care more about storytelling then roleplaying, but I can understand why this irritates some people.

Roleplaying:
I can roleplay in the game, there's nothing else to really say.

RPGness:
Meh, I love me some good storytelling, so rpging in video games is a second thought. With that said, however, the term 'RPG' is highly ambiguous, so feel free to correct me.

Level Design/Art Direction/Music/Atmosphere:
All excellent across the board: I felt I was in a wasteland, every area in the game was greatly detailed and the music only added to the atmosphere, which was also great.

Comparison to NV:
The storytelling in NV was much more interesting, just utterly intriguing to be honest really. Fallout 4s storytelling was great, but just not on the same level.

Final Rating: 8.9/10
 
And yet the plot holes, clunky exposition, and fuzzy motives are signs of bad writing. There are crummy games that I have played, that were saved thanks to great writing. I could not wait to see what twist or turn would come next, how characters would react and grow, and see a story unfold. That really doesn't happen in Fallout 4. If you can look past this, great for you. Seriously, you're capable of having more fun with it than I can. But the lousy plot holes and fuzzy motives ruined much of my emersion. The Institute makes little to no sense, and quickly lose any sense of being the big bad of the game. Compare them to The Master or Caesar, and they seem weak by comparison, let alone devoid of any valid reasons for even existing. And it's not even just plot holes; dropped story threads like Kellogg speaking through Nick, only to lead to pure nothingness. I will say they improved companions when compared to Fallout 3, yet their quest-lines lack the polish and finesse of New Vegas companions. Right now, all of my companions hang out at my Red Rocket Station, because I cannot be bothered to bring them along. Meanwhile, I loved keeping someone like Cass, Boone, or Veronica at my side. They felt like real companions, thanks to good backstories and interesting quest-lines. And I haven't even touched on the godforsaken Main quest and side quests. The illusion of choice, leading to a Yes and kill everything conclusion. That smacks of pure laziness to me. And no amount of excuses or hand waving will change my mind on that one.
 
I think people here talk about plot holes the most simply because it's the easiest way to illustrate bad writing. However, it doesn't necessarily have to be so; Fallout 4's writing is also lazy, amateurish and generally unpleasant, with the main character sounding like they're from a different fucking planet and the ending so half-assed you wouldn't even think it was a finished game.

The issue with all these things is, of course, that they're "subjective" in the sense that not everyone thinks of them this way. The main issue is that Fallout 4 has a heritage; it is a sequel to two classics of the RPG genre with stellar writing and New Vegas showed us that this inheritance can still very much be revived. At no point does it claim to have incredible writing, but I think a lot of people expected it to (or wanted it to, anyway). It's a disappointment, essentially, not an outright lie.

Then again, Todd Howard might have actually claimed it to be fantastically written and I've just missed that and if I wanted to allow myself to be entirely bitter I'd just tell you that Fallout 4 was intended for a target audience whose idea of complex writing is the twist at the end of every Scooby-Doo episode. But I don't.
 
But AccountNameM, you didn't compare it to the best game in the series, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.
 
Last edited:
Haha subjective writing, just like the people that say art is subjective when comparing a scribbled drawing to a painting in a museum.

-2/10 trying too hard.
 
MercenarySnake said:
Haha subjective writing, just like the people that say art is subjective when comparing a scribbled drawing to a painting in a museum.

-2/10 trying too hard.
Click to expand...

I think that's unfair, given how it's more of an opinion on the quality of the scribbled drawing, and even then it might be a comparison between, say, a renaissance painting and a comic book cover. The two have no business being compared to one another, and the strengths and weaknesses of one may be lacking in the other.

Of course, continuing from this train of thought, Fallout 4 is like a man buying the services of a famous painter, promising the public that he'll continue to do his work and do nothing but improve and then force them to do nothing but draw comic book covers for the rest of their lives, just so he can present them to the renaissance crowd and expect to get the same amount of praise as before.
 
Brivoo said:
I think that's unfair, given how it's more of an opinion on the quality of the scribbled drawing, and even then it might be a comparison between, say, a renaissance painting and a comic book cover. The two have no business being compared to one another, and the strengths and weaknesses of one may be lacking in the other.

Of course, continuing from this train of thought, Fallout 4 is like a man buying the services of a famous painter, promising the public that he'll continue to do his work and do nothing but improve and then force them to do nothing but draw comic book covers for the rest of their lives, just so he can present them to the renaissance crowd and expect to get the same amount of praise as before.
Click to expand...
When you compare Fallout 1, 2(to a lesser extent), and New Vegas there's no reason to use the subjective excuse when you compare the writing. I was using a scribbled drawing and a museum painting because that's exactly what it feels like when comparing the two. I think of it like this.

horse1.jpg


draw_a_horse_3.JPG


That's kind of what I'm getting at, the scribbled together horse is Fallout 4 in this case while the other is Fallout 1, 2, or New Vegas. I just don't get how Fallout 4's writing is subjective, it's so poorly written I'm surprised there's as many people like on the Beth forums and Reddit liking it all all.
 
MercenarySnake said:
That's kind of what I'm getting at, the scribbled together horse is Fallout 4 in this case while the other is Fallout 1, 2, or New Vegas. I just don't get how Fallout 4's writing is subjective, it's so poorly written I'm surprised there's as many people like on the Beth forums and Reddit liking it all all.
Click to expand...

I understand that. My comparison was meant to convey (admittedly in a somewhat cryptic manner) that the two games don't even share a genre, making them hard to compare.

Fallout 4 claims to be an RPG, but it's really just a shooter, and I suppose it does excel at that (Though even then I have doubts). New Vegas is a fantastic RPG, but it also claims to be an action game and it isn't exactly stellar in its combat mechanics.

Either way, Fallout 4 is "subjective" in that writing isn't something you can objectively attach a seal of quality to unless it's a grammatical matter. This argument is usually made when comparing different genres and styles of writing, e.g. Kurt Vonnegut's satire and Joseph Heller's dry wit; it has no place when judging actual quality of writing because it's something that, although difficult to pinpoint, can generally be given a somewhat objective stance.

It's also true that simpler minds enjoy simpler things, and I mostly get the impression from Fallout 4 that its audience isn't young adults, but rather teenagers and tweens.
 
No, I think it's safe to say that FO1, 2, and NVs' writing is objectively better, if not entirely because they actually make sense and aren't horribly ridden with plot holes. Honestly, with all the hundreds of millions of dollars Bethesda has, they really can't get anyone better than fucking Emil? They must keep him on the team out of pity, or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top