Now that I haven't got any stuff I need to do, I can now freely waste mine and everyone else's time with this.
It might be a matter of taste but I actually prefer not being able to play past the end (with a customary save right before it) precisely because of Fallout 4's way of handling it, and also the way that community mods attempting to add such an ending to New Vegas turn out. The concequences of the ending always feel minimal. In Fallout 4's case, it's hardly noticeable in terms of impact versus the slideshow which gives a definitive end and a more depthful look into the concequences of your choices, and the future. Vegas's slides aren't perfect (and I have complained about them on this site before) but I feel they're more impactful than a pretty comparatively minimally altered world. It's the same thing in the New Vegas post-ending mods, where despite some things being swapped around it never feels as impactful as what you picture when the slides describe the aftermath.
Fallout 4 would benefit more if it had actual concequences depicted in slides, then dropped you back into its post-game sandbox. Instead it's the two extremely shallow FMVs that might as well not be included, as it's just nothing-trailer style platitudes. It'd be like if New Vegas ended with just the "In the Mojave Wasteland, blood would still be spilled" bit and that's it.
The reason I don't feel they did this is for the same reason that Fallout 3 has very minimally different slides, which is effectively not enough meat in the quests and worldbuilding to actually make a worthwhile slideshow. Though mind you, I doubt it would be that much harder to do something like Fallout 1's rather simple one.
I would say that the Institute and the Brotherhood both have good introductions but the Railroad's is pretty laughable, what with the comically obvious Freedom Trail and the YES OR NO introductory dialogue. The Railroad having a binary morality on the issue isn't the problem, it's more that the players engagement with the question doesn't feel satisfying and as such it almost feels like the Devs are suggesting it really is a binary question, rather than that binary being the view of the Railroad. The player should be able to have more varied response than they do, but 4 has that issue of the transparently hollow Yes. Yes. No (Yes) wheel which is a direct downgrade from 3 (Which handled player dialogue serviceably). I have problems with them as a faction beyond that but that's not really what we're discussing.
Minutemen are a far worse player faction than Yes Man in a number of ways, I feel Yes Man is quite well set-up as a natural """"secret"""" of the plot and an interesting unveil, acting kind of like a chekov's gun for the whole game if you end up going Wild Card. Meanwhile the Minutemen are introduced in a very boring cinematic setpiece involving nameless raiders (a perennial problem with Beth Fallout that they did make some attempts to rectify in 4, but not really enough at all and still inferior to NV), don't particularly have much character to them and the whole "You're the General but actually you take orders from me, errand boy" thing is quite grating versus your sycophantic robot pal that's basically useless outside of his mcguffin trick. Of course, Garvey being immortal is also worse than Yes Man's reasoning but that's minor and not really important.
You get the basics of the Legion in the intro movie, which I think does a fine enough job for making you aware of what they are. I always think Nipton is botched as an introduction because most people don't pick up on Nipton being basically a raider's cove rather than a Goodsprings esque town. In fact, hearing about them in name only from the intro's ominous introduction of them and whatever NPCs mention, then being invited to go to their fort actually works a little better than meeting furry-man in Nipton, but I've never tried it that way.
The intro establishes them as an Old World style government, and what you hear of them in Goodsprings is quite contrasting to what most picture of the Fallout setting, particularly to people coming in from 3. Their introduction in Goodsprings is through worldbuilding i.e, the Powder Gangers and the entire conflict of the quest is a direct result of their chain-gang prison system and logistical incompetence. It introduces you to basic themes, i.e they're well equipped and attempting to civilize (building railways in the Mojave) but fall prey to mismanagement and strained resources (allowing the convict rebellion and being unable to contain it because they're focused on the Legion). Primm is basically a reinforcement of that, it's not that they can't take it (IIRC, I might be wrong) it's that they aren't authorized to and the soldiers are draftees who don't give a fuck. Personally, I think that's quite interesting, and NCR's portrayal as a whole is probably the most depthful in the series when it comes to factions.
New Vegas had more clearly defined systems for this, with the two major nations obviously picking up that you're starting to work for one faction or another, and also the faction reputations for all the sub-groups, as well as the potentially mixed-reputations for strange behaviour you could achieve like Wild Child which affected NPC dialogue.
Fallout 4 is objectively a step up from 3 in this regard and I applaud that, but my original point was that it was still playing catch-up to NV which already cracked a better system (one that needed refinement and improvement in and of itself)
It's been a while since I've seen Fistful, but as far as I recall your thoughts are quite ironic on this since a major plot point of the film is that Clint has concequences for his actions as both groups suss out what he's up to, and he gets the absolute shit kicked out of him. Which basically is what happens in Vegas, even then you can still Fistful of Dollars all factions up to a certain point where it becomes logically unreasonable, and then as you point out you can still pull a sneaky one by doing an NCR/Independent Vegas route.
I would say this comes down to a split in personal preference of player power-fantasy versus immersion. Something that's a player difference in RPGs going into tabletop too. Personally I'm of the immersion camp, so I prefer the New Vegas method of not being able to have my cake and eat it too versus the Skyrim method of being King MegaDong of all factions at the same time.
And in New Vegas you have:
White Glove Society
The Chairmen
The Omertas
The Kings
Westside
Mojave BoS
NCRCF Powder Gangers
Vault 19 Powder Gangers
Great Khans
The Boomers
The Fiends
The Thorn
Novac
Bright Followers
Goodsprings
Primm
Jacobstown
Black Mountain
And so on. 4 has better subgroups than 3 (Although I remember liking Reily's Rangers) but they still lack in depth and believability compared to the NV groups, and in quantity too. I also wouldn't champion the Cabots considering they are absolutely up there with the worst loony-toons bullshit in Fallout 2 like Seymour or Keeng Rat.
I tend to be on the anti-iron sights group when it comes to full FPS games but I felt it worked fine in Fallout, though at times I do think the isometric combat works better for FO full-stop.
The Speech/Charisma dump thing was something I always thought they should have rectified by replacing numerous Speech checks with Charisma checks (Where appropriate, i.e the Courier making an argument versus being schmoozy) and tying your ability to have companions to it, however deleting Speech completely is a huge misstep.
By combining Perks and Skills you ablate the uniqueness of both, it's part of the greater problem of Fallout 4's protagonist (and Skyrim too, though not Fallout 3) feeling like amorphous super-people ala Far Cry or whatever Ubisoft player characters. Skills are a legacy of tabletop and for good reason, reflecting the range of (obviously) skills that your character can interface with the world, their specialities and unique knowledge. Conversely, Perks were unique bonuses and quirks that would really direct and shape your character in fun ways. The worst perks were always no matter the game the one that gave you flat bonuses to Skills, and now that's basically the bread and butter of them. The synchronicity between SPECIAL, secondary stats, Skills and Perks always felt like putting together interesting combinations, and reducing the amount of parts in that jigsaw only reduces the character, I feel. The same way that making SPECIAL a flat floor that you upgrade upon like a Call of Duty perk system instead of a system that creates characters with natural weaknesses and strengths is also a step back.
That being said, 1, 2 and NV don't got far enough in guiding your character to specialize and "Jack Of All Trades" becomes "Master of most" instead of "Master of none" and SPECIAL isn't punishingly meaningful enough, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the "Master of All" issue in 4, which is only worsened by the soulless character building with the new perk and SPECIAL system.
You must be joking on this one, come on. For one, you can't disregard the voice. That's a major knee-capper to true roleplaying. Two, your character's life is already defined for you so concretely. You're an army veteran that fought in specific conflicts with a specific regiment, you live in Boston with your wife of many years. You're upper-middle class, live in a nice neighborhood with your own house, your own specific car, your own robot who you named Codsworth that makes you your favourite morning coffee. You're a fan of comic books, Nuka-Cola, particularly Grognak the Barbarian patriotic and look back on your service fondly, you have a baby named Shaun and a dog, and you're largely unaware of Vault-Tec or the threat of nuclear war and you ABSOLUTELY MUST FIND YOUR BABY even though the narrative structure lends you to taking your time.
Conversely with the Courier, all that needs to be required is that you've travelled around New California and delivered one package to the Divide and another to New Vegas in your past (I was never a fan of Lonesome Road's decision here but it is what it is now) . Your motivations can range from revenge, curiosity as to what you got yourself into and what exactly it was you were carrying (and how it's important, how was the game rigged? Who's setting me up?) or contractual obligation (You are given a note saying you're obligated to finish the delivery at punishment of fine, barring from courier work or even having mercenaries sent after you)
More importantly the voice affects the range of dialogue options, of which I'm sure you would even admit are far more limited than Fallout 3 before it and definitely more limited than NV. The Yes. Yes. No (Yes.) thing is a meme for a reason after all.
Of
course it's my opinion, this entire argument is on opinions. What else is it going to be? You can say from an objective standpoint 76 is/was a poorer game because of the absolutely unacceptable launch, unfinished nature and the anti-consumer practices but truthfully I don't know the background drama behind 76 so I don't know if it was forced out ala NV or a product of corporate hubris.
Seems you're the one having issues considering in my first post about it I already said I accepted that the framing and core conceipt of the players/plot needed to be a certain way, but that's not what I'm talking about. "The Raiders" and The Responders can still play the same function in the MMO gameplay but have much more interesting and compelling flavour which serves no purpose other than fluff. That's the worldbuilding that has zero to do with the gameplay.
It's less about applying to arbitrary rules but more the style and quality of portrayal, the FO Bible only matters in as much as it presented a high quality, cool version of that world with creative integrity. I'm sure New Vegas ignored stuff from the FO Bible, I don't know nor do I particularly care, because the version of the Fallout world it presented was great and championed what made Fallout really cool in the first place.
It's comparable to say Disney's handling of Star Wars or whatever. They own the IP, and the general populace really want to clap at things they know, they want to see Death Star repeats and Palpatine and whatever low-effort garbage. They can do whatever they want with it, and it makes them shedloads of money but it doesn't make it actually good or in the spirit of what elevated the originals to cultivate such love in the first place. It's (often) creatively lazy and continues to devalue the setting until it's whittled down into just flanderized marketing mascots. They of course have the legal right to do that, but I also have the right to go "That's garbage, and a shame"
It'd be like if Amazon owned the Tolkein Estate totally, and with the new Lord of the Rings TV show ignored basically everything about LOTR outside of what movie-goers fondly remember. Gollum saying precious, Dwarf memes or whatever and just turned it into the most low-effort crap that betrays what was originally written. Do they really need to adhere to what some crusty dead Britbonger wrote in a book? Not at all, they own it and it sells. But it'd be a shame, and it'd be of lower quality, no?
This also comes down to personal preference, again. Yours clearly comes down on the side of the fence of power-fantasy, which is fine but it's not my style. If I were in a tabletop game that was just blatant player-wank and waifuism, I'd probably leave just because it's not my thing. I find immersion and feeling engrossed with a setting to be more interesting as engagement. I feel "powerful" enough in my own life, I don't really get much satisfaction from it virtually when it's shallow. That can be fun in stuff like DOOM but when it comes to RPGs, it's not my shade of the genre.
Don't know + don't care. When I joined NV was beloved.
Did John Cleese influence Fallout 2 because the Bridgekeeper is referenced in it? You keep hinging on this point but it's the most genuinely nonsensical of everything you've said. Did NMA want a combat-focused game that ignored the lore, aesthetics and turned away from narrative focus? Did NMA want an Xbox-exclusive shooter with big booba texans? I'd be really interested to see you find the evidence of NMA extending its tendrils of creative influence, because that's what they wanted.
Thing is that Fallout 3 and 4 need cherrypicking to actually make it seem like they do have meaningful C&C. I think there's what, like one quest in 3 that has significant branching paths or inter-connectivity with your other interactions? Personally I always find the quest dick-measuring pointless because literally browsing the wiki tells you everything you need to know, and any arguments about it are going to be inherently cherrypicking because you can't mention all of them nor the greater sum/context.
Saying "You can sneak to do it" really doesn't change the argument much. I stand by my statement that dealing with the Khans is more multi-faceted than the major factions in 4. Again, easily provable by just looking at the wiki.
Your justifcation here is odd, because why not picture a Fallout 4 where the Atom Cats are also relevant to the story? They could have been, much like the silly Elvis men are in NV.
They also absolutely aren't the same in depth. Strip the Elvis gimmick from the Kings and they're still a faction with an important role. They're an oddly moralistic street gang of local tribal natives that are well-intentioned but ultimately violent, and reflect what it's like to be a native population during a foreign annexation that's double-edged, being as ham-handedly unfortunate as it is beneficial, and the complex feelings that can arise, leading to violence and misunderstandings. You as the agent of change can alter their trajectory, do they do their best to ease the transition and help their people by accepting it, or do you stock their rage and help them reject the foreign influence? Or do you bring temporary peace, with the ultimate goal of liberating them from the foreigners without violence in their streets.
If you strip the greaser thing from the Atom Cats, they're literally nothing.
If you have to "read between the lines" to decipher very basic goals of a faction, it's flawed if not poor presentation. As for their reasoning, if that really is the case why did they make them in such an inefficient human form? Why give them intelligence and sentience only to deny that sentience? Why not make far more efficient droids instead? What actionable steps are they actually taking to rebuild, what's their starting goal even to rebuild? What will they do immediately after their victory? Even if we go with your version, it's extremely vague. Compare this to the concrete objectives of NCR, House and Legion. Independent is the only one that's as vague as the Institute and that's because the central conceipt of that path is gambling on anarchy.
I can blatantly tell you're from /v/ or somewhere adjacent and as such you absolutely know this is not the case when it comes to which faction choice is still being debated, unless you're from /fog/, in which case yuck.
The anti-faction anarchist choice is inherently interesting but I agree that it's underdeveloped hence why half of the players thing it's the Courier being King Big Dick of Fuck Off Mountain
As far as your examples go, a weird loop in the gameplay meta-structure being your first jump for the poor writing is pretty odd. Yeah that's a weird logic-gap, but surely the quest fails if Joe Cobb is killed (Or at least the one to siege the town) meaning Goodsprings is safe, you just didn't do the Seven Samurai bullshit with Ringo's blessing and payment.
They don't go to the moon. They crash land nearby, they never make it out of orbit IIRC.
Lore inconsistencies are more the icing on the cake for nerds but that is not what people take issue with Fallout 4 primarily. Also, 2 is very inconsistent yes and everyone here acknowledges that. However, New Vegas is very tonally consistent. Weird, but consistent.
Anyway, your posts here are pretty hard to understand the reasoning behind. You say you want to talk about Fallout 3 but you post deliberately inflammatory retard shit instead of asking cool questions, inspiring discussion or talking about lore. Even I have made more constructive threads about Fallout 3 on its dedicated forum to discuss it than you have. If you're not a troll, I think there's probably something wrong in the noggin because it just seems like you're picking fights for the sake of it, then claiming you're just innocently trying to discuss stuff. You call the bethesda fans on this website token, but it's really not the case. There's plenty that start up interesting discussions and whilst some users can be annoyingly prickly they'll either be left alone if nobody cares to join in, or people will post their thoughts.
If you were more charitable and more good-faith, and less of a raging cunt I'd be inclined to talk to you more with whatever you respond with (and you might say something constructive/nice and we can chat well), but for now, nah.[/QUOTE]
What the shit bro
Edit: It's so big it doesn't even fit
