ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
It's not crap if you stop remembering it has Fallout in the name and parts of the Fallout lore in it. I swear. It's still pretty decent as long as you forget those bits.
Is Fallout 4 more goofy and zany than Fallout 3?
- Thread starter Sn1p3r187
- Start date
MercenarySnake
Kept you waiting huh?
That "If you forget about it and treat the game on its own merits then it's okay" excuse again...I'm sure there are lots of people that would like to do or do that but even when you treat it as a standalone title, is it still a good game? I find it boring either way but maybe mods will make it fun...or not
ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
Without mods? Sure. It's definitely worth the money. Plenty of worse games you can get for the same price. The only thing is that it's not the kind of game people on this forum likes, so that's completely fine. Some people don't find this kind of game boring.
I'm just in utter hatred of taking a better game and turning it into this.
Irwin John Finster
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
It is impossible to treat Fallout 4 as a standalone title because the Fallout aesthetic and lore is everywhere. It's a Fallout game, and it is a terrible disappointment. The only way this franchise can be salvaged for me is if Bethesda is kind enough to let someone else who makes actual RPGs for a living make a New Vegas 2 type spinoff.
As a hypothetical standalone title, Fallout 4 has corny dialogue, bad writing, HORRIBLE ANIMATIONS, and immersion breaking characteristics everywhere.
The writing is irredeemably awful - worst I've ever seen in a major RPG series and in a lot of games in general. Call of Duty games have stronger narrative. Couple this with the insanely bad character animations and what you're left with is a game that would be more immersive if it was made with 8 bit graphics like Wasteland 1 so you didn't have these weird, jarring, robotic characters voicing bad dialogue that doesn't even sync to their lips.
Lanfear
Mildly Dipped
I played Fallout 4 expecting a shit Fallout game and maybe an alright standalone game and was still bitterly disappointed. To say that this game is Bethesda treading water is overly generous.
Irwin John Finster
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I would have honestly been happy with Fallout 3 again. I'm not one of those people who thinks Fallout 4 should have been a hardcore cRPG (although that would be great). They couldn't even match the depth and dialogue of Fallout 3. In fact, they removed the dialogue altogether. Couple that with the absolutely atrocious, corny, cheesy writing and well...literally the only thing I like better in Fallout 4 relative to Fallout 3 is the first-person shooting.
ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
If only they had enough manners and respect to just not name it the fourth game. Call it a spin-off or something. Then again, they should've done this from Fallout 3, so the fact that they didn't means they will probably never gain enough respect for the series to actually do something good for it.
Still, I had fun with it. The fact that is was so far removed from the tone and consistency of the previous games made it pretty easy to not compare them at all. I enjoyed the game without having to force myself, or install any mods. It does run out of content pretty quickly, so it didn't go far beyond that.
Felt like finishing a whole bucket of popcorn. It's just the same stuff again and again, which was good first off but when you're done you're pretty much tired of it and also realise you feel bad about eating the whole bucket's worth, when for the same price you probably could've gotten a more decent meal. But popcorn's good, and so is Fallout 4. It just never makes you feel full in the satisfying way.
Like I said, a jack-of-all-trades game. It's got a bit of everything and it's good in nothing. But there are people who enjoy that, including me. Occasionally I felt bad about enjoying Fallout 4, but then I realised I'm allowed to have my own opinions.
I think I've mentioned this before, but a Call of Duty game had more variations and C&C in endings than Fallout 4 did, so there's that. You can't really compare Bethesda games to other franchises because Bethesda games are a unique genre all on its own. Well, it was unique. Before.
Still, I had fun with it. The fact that is was so far removed from the tone and consistency of the previous games made it pretty easy to not compare them at all. I enjoyed the game without having to force myself, or install any mods. It does run out of content pretty quickly, so it didn't go far beyond that.
Felt like finishing a whole bucket of popcorn. It's just the same stuff again and again, which was good first off but when you're done you're pretty much tired of it and also realise you feel bad about eating the whole bucket's worth, when for the same price you probably could've gotten a more decent meal. But popcorn's good, and so is Fallout 4. It just never makes you feel full in the satisfying way.
Like I said, a jack-of-all-trades game. It's got a bit of everything and it's good in nothing. But there are people who enjoy that, including me. Occasionally I felt bad about enjoying Fallout 4, but then I realised I'm allowed to have my own opinions.
I think I've mentioned this before, but a Call of Duty game had more variations and C&C in endings than Fallout 4 did, so there's that. You can't really compare Bethesda games to other franchises because Bethesda games are a unique genre all on its own. Well, it was unique. Before.
Wepwawet
First time out of the vault
Truth. I tried playing it again today but I couldnt bring myself to it for longer than an hour. It feels like everything is so.... shallow. There is no depth, just a shiny cover. There are very interesting locations in the game that serve as nothing more than killing grounds for the player. What hurts me most is the wasted potential in this huge world. So many untold stories could have been told in that wasteland. But no, the modern day video gamer isn't satisfied until the whole screen is red with blood.
I am sorry but I have to disagree on the "Plenty of worse games you can get for the same price." I have seen that being said in other places but I can't agree with that because in all of the Steam catalogue there is only five games (six if we count a visual novel) more expensive (two only 5 cents more), two games at the same price and six cheaper but around the same price range (-$10 USD +/-) than Fallout 4 (which costs $79.95 USD):
More expensive:
- Call of Duty®: Ghosts Digital Hardened Edition:
- $134.95 USD
- Snow Light:
- $99.99 USD (which is not even a game, it is a visual novel)
- ROMANCE OF THE THREE KINGDOMS 13:
- $89.99 USD
- Call of Duty® - Black Ops II
- $89.99 USD
- Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations WOTY:
- $79.99 USD
- Gary Grigsby's War in the East:
- $79.99 USD
- Wolfenstein: The New Order:
- $79.95 USD
- The Evil Within:
- $79.95 USD
- Grand Theft Auto V:
- $74.99 USD
- Lord of the Rings: War in the North:
- $73.99 USD
- Dying Light:
- $71.99 USD
- Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel:
- $69.99 USD
- Project CARS:
- $69.95 USD
- Anno 2205™
- $69.95 USD
So there is exactly two other games at the same price, very short of "plenty" and by reviews on steam they have Mostly Positive (The Evil Within) and Very Positive (Wolfenstein: The New Order) so I don't think they can be considered "worst games" than Fallout 4 by their reviews (around the same) I can't personally say they are better or worst because I never played them.
I am not trying to bash or dismiss your opinions, opinions can't be dismissed to begin with
, I am just saying that the "plenty of worst games for the same price" is a misconception. I already said here that I can see why some players have fun playing Fallout 4, my only two problems with is is being sold and a RPG and a Fallout game. 
ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
I am sorry but I have to disagree on the "Plenty of worse games you can get for the same price." I have seen that being said in other places but I can't agree with that because in all of the Steam catalogue there is only five games (six if we count a visual novel) more expensive (two only 5 cents more), two games at the same price and six cheaper but around the same price range (-$10 USD +/-) than Fallout 4 (which costs $79.95 USD):
More expensive:
Same Price:
- Call of Duty®: Ghosts Digital Hardened Edition:
- $134.95 USD
- Snow Light:
- $99.99 USD (which is not even a game, it is a visual novel)
- ROMANCE OF THE THREE KINGDOMS 13:
- $89.99 USD
- Call of Duty® - Black Ops II
- $89.99 USD
- Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations WOTY:
- $79.99 USD
- Gary Grigsby's War in the East:
- $79.99 USD
Cheaper but around the same price range (+/- $10 USD):
- Wolfenstein: The New Order:
- $79.95 USD
- The Evil Within:
- $79.95 USD
This list does not take into account sale's prices, I think people sometimes forget that Fallout 4 was (and still is) expensive even for a triple A game.
- Grand Theft Auto V:
- $74.99 USD
- Lord of the Rings: War in the North:
- $73.99 USD
- Dying Light:
- $71.99 USD
- Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel:
- $69.99 USD
- Project CARS:
- $69.95 USD
- Anno 2205™
- $69.95 USD
So there is exactly two other games at the same price, very short of "plenty" and by reviews on steam they have Mostly Positive (The Evil Within) and Very Positive (Wolfenstein: The New Order) so I don't think they can be considered "worst games" than Fallout 4 by their reviews (around the same) I can't personally say they are better or worst because I never played them.
I am not trying to bash or dismiss your opinions, opinions can't be dismissed to begin with
Those are some pretty insane price ranges. I'm glad to be living in South East Asia. Same games are at least 10-15 dollars cheaper than you've just described here.
But alright, I see your point. But since the games people like are subjective, one could argue that Fallout 4 is much better than any of the games on there. Of course, I won't be that "one to argue", but I account for all opinions, even the most ridiculous ones. So Bethesda's biggest crimes among crimes seem to be labelling the game wrong, both as a genre and as a series. I have to admit, for being masters of marketing that's a pretty dumb move they could've avoided right there, but if the sum of the problems are just being called an RPG and a Fallout game, I'm not actually sure the argument is going to make waves, since the only people who would sympathise with that are original Fallout fans and real RPG fans.
In short the minority who would consider Fallout 4 a worse game than most of the above would be the combined force of the two fanbases I mentioned above. That combined force isn't going to be enough to make a difference. And numbers do matter, because ME3's ending has proved that a negative backlash big enough can provoke a reaction of some kind from corporations.
Okay, I'm not sure where I was going with that. I guess what I'm saying is the fact that we should at least have better arguments than "it doesn't belong in the series" and "it doesn't belong in the genre", because games can be good and not do either of those things.
Izak
I Shot The ALBATROSS
I don't remember the marketing campaigns saying Fallout 4 was 'The RPG experience of the year!' or anything like that, the metacritic page also doesn't mention a genre; I'm not sure Fallout 4 is an RPG in any way.
ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
That's the thing. We all know it isn't an RPG, so what is Fallout 4 marketed as? I know it's unofficially an open-world FPS with barebones RPG mechanics, but that's not what it's advertised as. It doesn't fit in any one genre, really.
Yahtzee Croshaw in his Zero Punctuation review of Fallout 4 said:
Izak
I Shot The ALBATROSS
I guess we'll have to wait for a disgruntled Bethesda employee to do an AMA on reddit to tell us what the hell Fallout 4 is/was supposed to be.
Fallout 4 genre on Steam is just RPG, I don't mean Tags, I mean the actual game genre on the game info on Steam.
Also the only thing Bethesda says about the game on their Bethsoft store is:
Also the only thing Bethesda says about the game on their Bethsoft store is:
Last edited:
Earth
Vault Senior Citizen
Fallout 4 was a game made for everyone. Because of this it will be forgotten very quickly. Just another product to be consumed and forgotten like a McDonald's meal.
Izak
I Shot The ALBATROSS
At least McDonalds happy meals come with free toys, With Fallout 4 you have to pay $200 for a fucking Iphone holder.
ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
Aw, come on, really? They weren't even trying to sell the game on anything but the hype. If a newcomer to games strolled by this I don't think they would have any idea what kind of game it even is. That's two out of six lines on mentioning previous credits, and another two lines on a developer's quote, and another two lines that barely serves to say anything about the game but pump already-excited people for it. They're just mashed-together taglines with no actual meaning.
I mean, GTA V also did have this thing where the advertisements were just artwork of Michael, Franklin and Trevor with their names on and the release date and nothing else. Modern marketing, I guess. At least GTA V came out and met the fan's expectations, which is more than I can say for several AAA games as of recent years. Including Fallout 4.
I was pretty surprised too, I had just checked it because I do not criticise (good or bad) what I don't know and wanted to check what they said about the game... It is like any person that has any creativity was on holidays or something when they decided to make the game description text.
The Steam page also says the same thing without Todd Howard's quote.
Also Steam "Key Features" lie now that I looked at it again after so many time have passed, I will strike the lies while quoting just the first two Key Features:
The Steam page also says the same thing without Todd Howard's quote.
Also Steam "Key Features" lie now that I looked at it again after so many time have passed, I will strike the lies while quoting just the first two Key Features:
Last edited:
Lanfear
Mildly Dipped
There aren't hundreds of perks to choose from either, there's exactly 70.
Fixed, I am amazed how I didn't noticed that... I guess we could count ranks as more perks? but they are ranks not perks...