Fallout 4: What it didn't need and what it needed.

[CT Phipps]

If we're talking about the player in this case then they have no reason to care about him as he was only in the intro for a couple minutes as an uncanny babydoll with no emotional attachment. The son is nothing more than a mcguffin forced on the player just for the feels and nothing more, with the first two Fallouts you didn't have anything to get emotionally attached to and nothing forced on you.

You can ignore the main plot of the two games but it's still the primary objective. As for me, I wanted a roleplaying reason to give a shit whether the Institute was destroyed or not.

Voiced protaganist makes it harder for you to believe that you are the player character yourself. It rather makes you feel like you are playing someone else story. Mass effect and witcher series doing it is fine as that is what you want from those series. It’s not something people wanted in fallout. Voiceless protagonist worked fine for fallout and most people preferred it that way.

I think many people were excited about having a voiced protagonist. The problem was the dialogue choices were poorly done and not at all like previous games.

Power armor is something that should be rare and highly valuable in the fallout universe. It’s something that you get introduced to in the mid-early game but can’t use it yet. It creates a sense desire and fascination with it. Then you finally get it and learn how to use it after working your ass off, only then can you fully appreciate the power armor and get a huge sense of in game accomplishment from obtaining it.

I think one of the few things which Fallout 4 did right was increase the power of the Power Armor and its aura. Power Armor went from merely being one of the best suits of armor in the game to an entirely new experience requiring upkeep but also having many customization jobs. You could go from regular power armor to having rocket boosters and more.

Deathclaws should be high level enemies who you should have no chance of fighting in the early game. Same goes for powerful weapons (ie chain gun). Giving you both the start of the game kind of destroys the pacing of the game. It makes you not fear deathclaws or make you realise the value of high powered weapons if they are introduced at the start and are so abundant.

On the contrary, I felt it gave the Deathclaws a sense of greater menace as you realized just how much punishment they could take but I suspect it may have had a different effect for most PCs. It's not an unarmored PC with a rifle versus a Deathclaw but one which can tear through you even in a tank.

So you are saying you want the same dog to magically appear in all fallout games? It makes no sense how the same dog happens to or it’s lineage happens to be in every game the player character is in. Dogmeat is history and that is how he should stay. I honestly preferred Rex much more especially due to his cyborg ish aesthetics

I don't consider Dogmea an Easter Egg, I consider him an important part of the game's lore and aesthetic.

Honestly I didn’t like the random encounters in original games either. I mean how stupid was the player character was to suddenly out of nowhere find himself in the middle of a radscorpion orgy? It was kind of funny but really annoying.

I think it's necessary to make sure you don't think of the Wasteland as a civilized safe place but a dangerous one which could kill you in a hundred ways.

You are forced into a main quest in all fallout games (almost in all rpg games) but this is based on what an ideal fallout game would be in my opinion.

I don't disagree. I'd prefer a Bethesda, "prisoner" approach.

Preston garvey makes you the general then keeps on giving you orders like you are his bitch. And his awfull raidant quest automatically being added to your quest lists without you even agreeing to it.

I think he acts as your secretary versus giving orders but this is an annoying bug, yes.

Weapon condition gave a survival and realistic aspect to the game which made me like it better.

To each their own.

I mean there should be lots of location to discover but evenly spaced out. In fallout 4 and NV there some are areas with congested with locations.

I think Fallout 4's biggest problem was it was one gigantic swamp, generic farms,and Boston.

Why do you think Nuka world is awesome?

Nuka World basically corrected one of the major flaws of the game for me, which is the fact the Commonwealth is utterly devoid of interesting places to visit. One of the most exciting places to visit is fucking Hubris Comics and if that's the highlight of your day then you've done something seriously wrong. Nuka World gives you a large amount of eye-candy, interesting "dungeons" to explore, a return of Fallout's trademark humor, and a tragic story with Oswald the Magnificent.

There's also the fun sidequests in the Grandchester Mystery Mansion and Hubologists. After the grossly underdeveloped Commonwealth, it was a breath of fresh air. Also, if you are a fan of Coca Cola's history or Disneyworld, there's literally hundreds of in-jokes including the fact they replicate Space Mountain and Epcot Center's Riverboat Ride.

Plus, one of my basic Fallout enjoyment tests is how much I get to be like Mad Max. The return of Raiders to prominence and the option to become Lord Humungous was something I've wanted in Fallout for decades.

Honestly, Nuka World could have been its own game if they'd expanded it to maybe 3 times its size and given more options.

 

[SAR]

One of the things I forgot to mention was that I liked the opening parts of fallout 3. I know most people didn't like it but i enjoyed it. It does contradicts with my point of not being forced into a main story but i still like the idea of you being able to shape your childhood.

 

[CT Phipps]

One of the things I forgot to mention was that I liked the opening parts of fallout 3. I know most people didn't like it but i enjoyed it. It does contradicts with my point of not being forced into a main story but i still like the idea of you being able to shape your childhood.

I think the opening needed about 10-15 minutes more with a chance to explore the neighborhood and find out all about the terrible things which are going on in the world. I mentioned it would be better if you were visiting your sister as opposed to your wife because I felt like they badly misused the option to be a married protagonist. We rarely get to see that.

I was REALLY hoping your spouse would show up later in the game, the leader of a wasteland community or something and you'd have a choice to continue your life with her/him or not.

 

[SAR]

I think 10-15 minutes would be too less. An hour or more would have been better. And the beginning could be like in stages. In stage one you get to meet your neighbors and get to know them. In stage two you buy your place in the vault. And finally in stage 3 you you go to the vaults not in the exact last minute the bombs fall but a few days earlier as you know the war is imminent. Yeah I know you will then miss out the nuke explosion in the beginning. And vault happened to be filled with most people from your neighborhood. In this way if they do happen to die at least you will feel something for them.

 

[Jogre]

Dogmeat shouldn’t exist to begin with!

I disagree with this part tbh. I liked Dogmeat in Fallout 1.

It was a very cool idea giving the PC a Dog, and obviously Dogs would be useful in a post-apoc universe. Plus it was a nice little shout out to Mad Max(His former owner having a funny accent and wearing a leather jacket) and A boy and his dog(Dogmeat being an insult used against Blood in the movie adaptation).

Although they should at least make a new dog every game, rather than rehashing the same old dog over and over. I mean FO2 I thought was ok because he was an easter-egg companion, but apart from that yeah.

At least with Shaun as your Son, you have a reason to want to protect one side over the other.

The thing is, having a son in the Institute means that a lot of your judgement on factions is heavily clouded.

2 and New Vegas did faction conflicts much better, because with Vault City, New Reno, NCR, Legion and House you could see the factions for who they truly were, and side with them out of a purely ideological standpoint, or because you felt they genuinely would make the world a better place, as opposed to 4, which through Shaun gives you an artificial reason to care about one faction or another.

 

[SAR]

I disagree with this part tbh. I liked Dogmeat in Fallout 1.

I meant there shouldn't be any dogmeat after fallout 1. There should be new dog companions with new names such as Rex.

 

[CT Phipps]

I think 10-15 minutes would be too less. An hour or more would have been better. And the beginning could be like in stages. In stage one you get to meet your neighbors and get to know them. In stage two you buy your place in the vault. And finally in stage 3 you you go to the vaults not in the exact last minute the bombs fall but a few days earlier as you know the war is imminent. Yeah I know you will then miss out the nuke explosion in the beginning. And vault happened to be filled with most people from your neighborhood. In this way if they do happen to die at least you will feel something for them.

I disagree because then the game would be completely altered after that point with no similarity. The fact is all of your neighbors are going to die horribly and there's going to be no real point to getting to know them. Also, I point out that Massachusetts 50 miles across.

You are in no danger from seeing the bomb at that distance.

2 and New Vegas did faction conflicts much better, because with Vault City, New Reno, NCR, Legion and House you could see the factions for who they truly were, and side with them out of a purely ideological standpoint, or because you felt they genuinely would make the world a better place, as opposed to 4, which through Shaun gives you an artificial reason to care about one faction or another.

Actually, that gets to my biggest problem with Fallout and why Lonesome Road is a well-written thoroughly unengaging mess. It attempts to make idealogy the single most important part of a character's life and fails utterly when your character chooses not to partake in it.

One of the best reviews of Pillars of Eternity was about a gamer who realized the game wasn't actually interested in what they was interested in terms of exploring the setting.

https://johnswritersblock.com/2015/04/20/pillars-of-eternity-ending-review/

What they should have done instead is make their story a character driven human drama, because that’s where the writing really shines. When I was learning about the various gods and the political machinations of Defiance Bay I was left utterly disinterested. When I found a the body of a small murdered boy and experienced his final moments I nearly cried.

When Lady Webb was trying to explain the political infighting between the Crucible Knights and the Dozens, I couldn’t have cared less. But when she told me about her love affair with Thaos, I was fascinated.

Which is why the ending really doesn’t work for me. For one, it was my relationship with Thaos that was the most fascinating part of the game for me. In the flashbacks that occur throughout the story, you relive your past life as a follower of Thaos; watching yourself go from an unknown acolyte to his right-hand man. I had actually grown to like Thaos character, especially after learning about his love for Lady Webb. He was very human character, despite having lived thousands of years.

Yet at the end there was no real sense of resolution to this character arc. Instead we get one of the dumbest and most pointless plots ever conceived.

It goes on for a bit but the player was playing because of their character's personal relationships and complete disinterest in the issue of gods and atheism. Which, in the end, is all the ending is concerned about because it's a game about ideology. The idea the player can simply NOT CARE about the central conflict is not an option-which is problematic as I think that should be a valid option in any ideologically charged issue.

In the case of the BOS and Institute, you should have the option which the Greybeards represented in Skyrim.

"You are both morons."

 

[Prone Squanderer]

No, not really. If someone came up to you tomorrow and said "Hey this is your son btw" and then ran away would you really have some kind of deep emotional attachment?

I disappeared for 2 hours at the Christmas party with no recollection of what happened a couple years back. That could actually happen to me...



Can I stay in your freezer?

 

[Jogre]

It does the same thing James and Shaun are supposed to do. "You, PC, are attached to your Vault or Tribe enough to want to help them." Otherwise, you wouldn't give enough of a shit to look for the Water Chip or GECK.

You don't nescessarily have to do it because you care about your tribe or vault.

In the case of the Vault Dweller you could be doing it because you want to continue living in the vault(It is the safest place around), or because you care about a limited number of people in the vault, ect.

With the Tribe, you are the Chosen One, you will likely one day lead your tribe. It could soley be a power thing, it could also be because you consider it home.

Your attachment to a place can be centered around many different reasons, however with your son, it kind of has to assume your looking for him because you care about him(There's no other rational reasons you can really think of)

It goes on for a bit but the player was playing because of their character's personal relationships and complete disinterest in the issue of gods and atheism. Which, in the end, is all the ending is concerned about because it's a game about ideology. The idea the player can simply NOT CARE about the central conflict is not an option-which is problematic as I think that should be a valid option in any ideologically charged issue.

Being soley about Ideology, is IMHO, Better than forcing you to have a fake emotional attachment.

If there is any aspect of emotional attachment, it should be 100% optional.

 

[CT Phipps]

Being soley about Ideology, is IMHO, Better than forcing you to have a fake emotional attachment.

If there is any aspect of emotional attachment, it should be 100% optional.

Which is weird because I find emotional attachment easier to buy than ideology.

It's one of my oddest feelings regarding NV (which I think of the best Fallout) is why a citizen would want ANY faction to win versus keeping the lands enjoyably free. It kind of locked me into Independence so no one wins.

Whereas I'd go far for my Companions.

I'm attached to people, not causes.

 

[Zyax]

I meant there shouldn't be any dogmeat after fallout 1. There should be new dog companions with new names such as Rex.

I mean he's literally been in 1, 2, 3, and 4, if anything they should start changing the name just to make the joke about the fact that there's a Dogmeat in every game. Like you heal an injured wolf and his name becomes Wolfmeat.

 

[omphaloskepsis]

Which is weird because I find emotional attachment easier to buy than ideology.

It's one of my oddest feelings regarding NV (which I think of the best Fallout) is why a citizen would want ANY faction to win versus keeping the lands enjoyably free. It kind of locked me into Independence so no one wins.

Whereas I'd go far for my Companions.

I'm attached to people, not causes.

Interesting. FONV is one of the few games where I felt sympathy for multiple ending options, and thought there was a rationale for several as well.

<I was going to talk about the various endings, but didn't want to open a whole new can of worms. Moving on...>

Looking at the world of Fallout, it seems odd to me that you don't get why people would want to organize and promote safety, order, law, etc. When you really don't have those things, they tend to be at the top of your priority list, even at the expense of other "basics".

 

[CT Phipps]

Looking at the world of Fallout, it seems odd to me that you don't get why people would want to organize and promote safety, order, law, etc. When you really don't have those things, they tend to be at the top of your priority list, even at the expense of other "basics".

I play loners and antiheroes generally who are suspicious of authority. It doesn't matter whether I'm playing Geralt, Shepard, Dragon Age, or more. Hence why I go with Independent and I consider installing the BOS as feudal overlords of the Capital Wasteland to be tragic rather than triumphant.

Just a preference.

Part of it is also because my ideal character for Fallout is Mad Max.

 

[Zyax]

The thing is, having a son in the Institute means that a lot of your judgement on factions is heavily clouded.

I see where you're coming from, but I think it's somewhat realistic, as most of the time our perceptions of groups are clouded by biases we have for one reason or another.