New here, and may I just ask a stupid question for once?

[TomJ]

snip

Also, the earlier point with Saint's Row is done, I know, but my couple of views. I enjoyed both Saints Row: The Third and IV quite a lot, Saint's Row 2 was really the best balanced in the series. I miss having ones like them, and hoped Volition would turn back to trying their hand at their classic Saint's Row formula someday, even if it gets decried as a GTA rip-off. But hey, at least their turnaround with the theme didn't fail. Saints Rows after the second one held up very well even if the original fans of the first two didn't appreciate the change. I guess that's kinda like the situation here - Fallout 3 and 4 were good games, but they don't beat the original two, plus aren't even in the same league of overall tone.

The difference between Saints Row and Fallout is that Saints Row has been made by the same people since the beginning. Fallout has changed hands after a gap of 7 years (Ignoring BoS for this, it really departed from the "normal" games). Games evolved and the capabilities of consoles and computers changed. When Fallout 3 was developed, Bethesda had a working engine and used it to revive the series. Even if they made Fallout 3 90% of what people here wanted and made it contemporary with Fallout, it be derided for that alone. Not to mention lore inconsistencies that come with a series changing hands like that.

Which comes down to what I always say about Bethesda, they can make good games. Oblivion despite its mechanical failures was a good game. Even if Fallout 3 was that caliber, it still wouldn't be an isometric game. Which wouldn't really sell to people who aren't hardcore fans. Hell, I wouldn't have been interested in it if it were an isometric game. Games need to evolve and there will be growing pains. Lets hope they don't kill the series in the mean time, or hope that Bethesda cleans house on the development team. That isn't likely because of the hype induced sales, but here's to a social media campaign.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Oblivion was a terrible game, while there were some unique quests, all but a few were linear and combat orientated.

 

[TomJ]

Oblivion was a terrible game, while there were some unique quests, all but a few were linear and combat orientated.

When it comes to combat, there are only so many ways to skin a cat.

Why I think Oblivion is a good game is the number of quests and the variety of them. Skyrim and Fallout 4 have a lot of radiant quests, but few written quests. Also, my motivation for going some place for some thing is more than, "bandits broke into this heavily fortified area and stole on thing." Sometimes I'm helping a thief, sometimes its a guild that I joined just to make money, sometimes I find a quest because I asked the bar tender about rumors. In Fallout 4, all we're stuck with are bandit quests from the Minutemen or go find/kill stuff for the BoS. A game should have the quantity and perceived quality of quests before radiant ones are stuck in as filler. But, the downside of more capable hardware is the ability for the game to make itself. I don't mind the radiant quests. Some times early in games, they're needed to get you to explore and resupply, but a game can't be built around them.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Oblivion was a terrible game, while there were some unique quests, all but a few were linear and combat orientated.

When it comes to combat, there are only so many ways to skin a cat.

Why I think Oblivion is a good game is the number of quests and the variety of them. Skyrim and Fallout 4 have a lot of radiant quests, but few written quests. Also, my motivation for going some place for some thing is more than, "bandits broke into this heavily fortified area and stole on thing." Sometimes I'm helping a thief, sometimes its a guild that I joined just to make money, sometimes I find a quest because I asked the bar tender about rumors. In Fallout 4, all we're stuck with are bandit quests from the Minutemen or go find/kill stuff for the BoS. A Bethesda game should have the quantity and perceived quality of quests before radiant ones are stuck in as filler. But, the downside of more capable hardware is the ability for the game to make itself. I don't mind the radiant quests. Some times early in games, they're needed to get you to explore and resupply, but a game can't be built around them.

True, just give more dialogue, options and choices in an Oblivion quest and you'd get something great. Otherwise they're crap.

 

[TomJ]

I also said Oblivion was a good game, not great or amazing, just good. Its more than mediocre, but definitely not crap. Could Bethesda have learned from what was lacking in Oblivion and carried it into Fallout 3? Yes! But, Bethesda went the mass marketing mediocrity route instead of mass marketing good games.

 

[Dr Fallout]

I also said Oblivion was a good game, not great or amazing, just good. Its more than mediocre, but definitely not crap. Could Bethesda have learned from what was lacking in Oblivion and carried it into Fallout 3? Yes! But, Bethesda went the mass marketing mediocrity route instead of mass marketing good games.

It's still not good, it's far less then mediocre. I mean what's good about it? I did like the peaceful music and walking around the woods but god damn it, I didn't buy the game for psychological therapy.

 

[PipBoyofSteel15]

Here is my fundamental problem with Fallout 4: It's a game about traveling the wastes and killing 80%+ of the people that you meet. The game is frankly uninterested in letting you solve problems through means other than violence, so it's not the sort of thing that can hold my attention for 70+ hours. The dilemmas the game presents you with are frequently of the form "Kill those guys or those other guys" (or "go there and kill everything, else don't go there at all.")

I suppose the idea was that settlement building was supposed to provide variety to keep your reign of terror in the wasteland from getting dull, but frankly I've never really been able to get into that sort of thing.

There's also the major problem that the game isn't really interested in letting you roleplay all that much, since it makes assumptions about your character basically constantly.

I won't come right out and say it's a bad game, since "bad game/good game" is generally shorthand for "game I disliked/game I liked" (possibly with reasons for either) anyway. I just know that it's not really a game that connects with me, it's even a game that connects with me less than Fallout 3 did, and that's saying something.

I get this, and thank you for telling it to me straight. I'm sorry to anyone on this forum who read this and was offended. I was debating to myself whether to take this down or not, but I'll leave it up for discussion. I wrote this, again, out of curiosity and anger after the situation where (presumably 1 or a few) users were able to access my normal email AND my alternate email, claiming they were from this site, and told me I should commit suicide. Obviously, whether the person was actually here or not, it crossed some sort of boundary right? So at that moment, I asked myself, "Why do these people hate Fallout 4 to the point that they will tell someone to kill themselves over it". That is where most of my mistake rests. The fact that I categorized everyone in my rant. I know there are some good, friendly people on this forum, and I was a jackass to assume that (Even though the culture on the site itself is kind of distasteful IMO). I hope even some of you can forgive my ruthless ass comment

 

[Walpknut]

If someone actually did that, then you should inform the admins or mods so the person will get swiftly banned.

 

[MercenarySnake]

Whoa that seems extreme that someone would tell you to commit suicide let alone someone here but if it was someone from here then it's best to do as Walpknut says.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Woah... I mean we can get worked up but that? That's too far... I would like to say for even Beth fans but sadly I've had loads of these cases.