So, can we talk about what Fallout 4 does well?

[Someguy37]

Exactly, but Bethesda still screwed that up! Instead of allowing PC interaction, possible quests and choices they made them boring killers.

Why exactly would raiders WANT to interact with you?

You aren't part of their crew, you aren't part of an allied raider gang, you aren't part of the caravans the deal with, you are just some guy walking into their territory... and they are raiders, people who RAID others for stuff. They have no reason to talk to you, and no reason to want to talk to you, at all.

They have even LESS reason to talk to you if you join the Minutemen, BoS, or Institute, given that each of those factions hunt down and kill raiders, thus making you a hated enemy.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Exactly, but Bethesda still screwed that up! Instead of allowing PC interaction, possible quests and choices they made them boring killers.

Why exactly would raiders WANT to interact with you?

You aren't part of their crew, you aren't part of an allied raider gang, you aren't part of the caravans the deal with, you are just some guy walking into their territory... and they are raiders, people who RAID others for stuff. They have no reason to talk to you, and no reason to want to talk to you, at all.

They have even LESS reason to talk to you if you join the Minutemen, BoS, or Institute, given that each of those factions hunt down and kill raiders, thus making you a hated enemy.

Because you might be an aspiring new member, a merchant or other character. You're not a renowned raider killer straight up, and depending on what gang you kill the others might try be your ally or at the very least manipulate you. They're not stupid, and if using you can strengthen them, why the hell not do it?

If you join them then yes, you can't interact. But otherwise why not? It actually makes sense if you can. Remember, Raiders don't become crazy Fiend druggies all the time. If anything Fallout 1/2/NV has actual organized gangs.

 

[Askorti]

Exactly, but Bethesda still screwed that up! Instead of allowing PC interaction, possible quests and choices they made them boring killers.

Why exactly would raiders WANT to interact with you?

You aren't part of their crew, you aren't part of an allied raider gang, you aren't part of the caravans the deal with, you are just some guy walking into their territory... and they are raiders, people who RAID others for stuff. They have no reason to talk to you, and no reason to want to talk to you, at all.

They have even LESS reason to talk to you if you join the Minutemen, BoS, or Institute, given that each of those factions hunt down and kill raiders, thus making you a hated enemy.

Because in real life gangsters don't shoot at everyone on sight? Look at how well it was done in New Vegas where you can even join one gang and trade with another. Those groups are far more than player target practice, they have their goals, aspirations and structures. That's depth. Something out of bethesda's nightmares.

 

[SaucyLad]

Exactly, but Bethesda still screwed that up! Instead of allowing PC interaction, possible quests and choices they made them boring killers.

Why exactly would raiders WANT to interact with you?

You aren't part of their crew, you aren't part of an allied raider gang, you aren't part of the caravans the deal with, you are just some guy walking into their territory... and they are raiders, people who RAID others for stuff. They have no reason to talk to you, and no reason to want to talk to you, at all.

They have even LESS reason to talk to you if you join the Minutemen, BoS, or Institute, given that each of those factions hunt down and kill raiders, thus making you a hated enemy.

Because in real life gangsters don't shoot at everyone on sight? Look at how well it was done in New Vegas where you can even join one gang and trade with another. Those groups are far more than player target practice, they have their goals, aspirations and structures. That's depth. Something out of bethesda's nightmares.

Even one of the former leaders of the Great Khans - Garl Death-Hand from Fallout 1 gave you the chance to talk/interact without trying to kill you.

Fallout 4 raider's are so badly done and overly abundant in the Wasteland it's crazy.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Exactly, but Bethesda still screwed that up! Instead of allowing PC interaction, possible quests and choices they made them boring killers.

Why exactly would raiders WANT to interact with you?

You aren't part of their crew, you aren't part of an allied raider gang, you aren't part of the caravans the deal with, you are just some guy walking into their territory... and they are raiders, people who RAID others for stuff. They have no reason to talk to you, and no reason to want to talk to you, at all.

They have even LESS reason to talk to you if you join the Minutemen, BoS, or Institute, given that each of those factions hunt down and kill raiders, thus making you a hated enemy.

Because in real life gangsters don't shoot at everyone on sight? Look at how well it was done in New Vegas where you can even join one gang and trade with another. Those groups are far more than player target practice, they have their goals, aspirations and structures. That's depth. Something out of bethesda's nightmares.

Exactly. Gangs need people to join them, otherwise they die out. It's called LOGIC.

 

[Someguy37]

-Because you might be an aspiring new member
-a merchant or other character.
-You're not a renowned raider killer straight up, and depending on what gang you kill the others might try be your ally or at the very least manipulate you. They're not stupid, and if using you can strengthen them, why the hell not do it?
-If you join them then yes, you can't interact. But otherwise why not? It actually makes sense if you can.
-Remember, Raiders don't become crazy Fiend druggies all the time. If anything Fallout 1/2/NV has actual organized gangs.

-If they wanted new members, they would come ask you, not the other way around.

-If you are a merchant, or other wandering person, you are obviously not part of the caravans, and thus are free game to any raider.

-Because no raider leader that wants to keep the respect of his men is going to use an outsider to do the tasks he/she and their gang are supposed to be able to do themselves if they were a strong group. This is actually lampshaded a bit in-game. During the main quest you have to rescue Nick Valentine from the Triggermen. At the end of this quest you talk to their boss, and can convince him to let you and Nick go, despite having killed a number of Triggermen beforehand. If you do this, you can later find the boss wandering the wasteland. Talking to him reveals that afterwards the Triggermen threw him out of the vault they were using as their base because he compromised with an outsider instead of killing them like he should have. Raiders groups are based around individual power, with the various leaders having to be the meanest assholes in the wastes. Using you to do their own dirty work only makes them look weak and ineffectual, and insults the supposed "power" their gang is supposed to have.

-Because they logically have no reason to want to talk to some random idiot wandering the wastes when their entire lifestyle is based on attacking anyone they meet, and stealing from them.

-Lets see
--Vipers attack on sight with no means of talking to them.
--Jackals attack on sight with no means of talking to them.
--The Khans in Fallout 2 only had the option of killing them IIRC.
The only raiders in the west that haven't been simply just "kill on sight" were the Khans and Powder Gangers in NV. And even then, the Khans were only really open to talk because they had been basically destroyed twice before due to how hostile they were, and were literally on their last legs as a group.

 

[Dr Fallout]

-Because you might be an aspiring new member
-a merchant or other character
-You're not a renowned raider killer straight up, and depending on what gang you kill the others might try be your ally or at the very least manipulate you. They're not stupid, and if using you can strengthen them, why the hell not do it?
-If you join them then yes, you can't interact. But otherwise why not? It actually makes sense if you can.
-Remember, Raiders don't become crazy Fiend druggies all the time. If anything Fallout 1/2/NV has actual organized gangs.

-If they wanted new members, they would come ask you, not the other way around.

-If you are a merchant, or other wandering person, you are obviously not part of the caravans, and thus are free game to any raider.

-Because no raider leader that wants to keep the respect of his men is going to use an outsider to do the tasks he/she and his gang are supposed to be able to do themselves if they were a strong group. This is actually lampshaded a bit in-game. During the main quest you have to rescue Nick Valentine from the Triggermen, at the end, you talk to their boss, and can convince him to let you and Nick go, despite having killed a number of Triggermen beforehand. If you do this, you can later find the boss wandering the wasteland. Talking to him reveals that afterwards the Triggermen threw him out of the vault they were using as their base because he compromised with an outsider instead of killing them like he should have. Raiders groups are based around individual power, with the various leaders having to be the meanest assholes in the wastes. Using you to do their own dirty work only makes them look weak and ineffectual.

-Because they logically have no reason not want to talk to some random idiot wandering the wastes when their entire lifestyle is based on attacking anyone they met, nd stealing from them.

-Lets see
--Vipers attack on sight with no means of talking to them.
--Jackals attack on sight with no means of talking to them.
--The Khans in Fallout 2 only had the option of killing them IIRC.
The only raiders in the west that haven't been simply just "kill on sight" were the Khans and Powder Gangers in NV. and even then, the Khans were only really open to talk because they had been basically destroyed twice before due to how hostile they were.

1. They don't even know you, and why not make that happen?

2. Agreed, but raiders aren't going to kill everyone, this isn't Mad Max, this is Fallout where EVERY big raider gang in the past games can be interacted with.

3. That only works if every fucking gang has the old and frankly primitive system of 'strong men at top' which is unrealistic. Many of the world's greatest leaders weren't strong men, but charismatic and smart individuals. That while a possible system applies to a few groups, not all.

4. Again they might, what if you destroyed a rival? They aren't all fucks who don't give a crap. They're Human after all. And Raiders will not succeed if they talk everyone they meet, because they might meet a stronger opponent.

5. Vipers and Jackals are broken wrecks that have no power. They're trying to scavenge and survive, attacking anyone in the hope of striking it rich. Because you resembled the Vault Dweller, hence their leader who survived the massacre the Vault dweller did to his gang (yep he won't mind that) will attack. You're ignoring the Vipers to a small extent.

 

[Someguy37]

snip

1. That's exactly the point. They don't know you, they have no reason to want to know you, you are just some guy, and they are raiders, people who, by definition, raid others to survive. You are their standard target.

2. Except Fallout has always been based on Mad Max. Literally, its one of the CORE aspects of the series it is massive Mad Max inspirations, along with "a boy and his dog". And no, the only game where you could interact with raider groups outside killing them was NV, and a very small non-canon quest in Fallout 1 where you could join the Khans for no reason and that never went anywhere.

3. They are raiders, and are primitive by definition since they don't have anything resembling aggriculture, which is why they have to rely on stealing from others to survive. Smart people don't form raider groups, they form cities, empires, and nations.

4. Then you did them a favor, and now they get the chance to kill you, and take all your stuff, as well as the stuff of the group you just killed and left behind, with no effort being needed on their part since you already killed everyone.

5. That is literally the exact definition of every raider group. If they weren't scavenging to survive, they wouldn't be raiders, they would be farmers.

 

[Crni Vuk]

A raider faction would be awesome though, with a raider town/community. One where you can at least interact with, if not really joining it - there is no reason why the player should be able to join every group or faction.

But I don't see why a future Fallout game should not offer the player more ways to interact with raiders, maybe even become one. It would be a perfect oportunity for a chaos/neutral ending. With even more potential than Yes-Man in Fallout NV.

Bethesda has for some reason a huge love for binary choices - the few cases where you CAN decide actually. From Oblivion to Fallout 4. It's either group A or B, Kill or not Kill. And quite a lot of people even think that doing or not doing a quest is already a choice ...

One thing that I loved about New Vegas, is that the game gives you a lot of depth even if you decide to work with the NCR, House or the Legion. At least not all quests are just about just two choices, in fact most quests really allow you to play with a lot of nuances. Sometimes only small, but sometimes also with bigger differences.

 

[farchettiensis]

So, F4. So far, I think it is... really bad . An experiment gone wrong. I want the skills, the perks back. Give me my game back, Bethesda. It's shallow, I don't want to play The Sims/Sim City in the freaking Wasteland - and that means 0 for the game (in terms of consequences)! I don't care about the factions, which hardly deserve this name. It's a step back in most aspects - even where you see good things (like being able to mod your weapons, the whole crafting system is clearer and more developed), the bad things make it up to it. I felt that, previously, there was a strong connection between your weapons, your level, your stats, your perks. I don't feel that now. Levels don't matter, the way I see them. I simply don't care about it. In fact, I don't care about anything going on this generic open-word shooter they attached to the Fallout franchise.

This franchise was very dear to me - judge me, I know it's a game, but I had awesome times with it. If Bethesda follows on the path set out by F4, I will never play it again. I'd rather have the memories from the old school games. You know, just admit to it, Bethesda, you screwed it up. Give me back my game, the perks, old schools power armor (ok, you can keep the fuel thing, and maybe the visual, but thrash everything else), a PLOT, the LONE WANDERER, not the John or Mary Doe, give me back the dialogues, the alternative endings, the alternative ways to approach a quest, to respond to the events, to talk back.

Yeah, it's just a game. But game-wise, in my gamer's experience, it was probably my biggest disappointment. You know, I expected to grow, as I did, work, but still play Fallout on weekends, just take my time to explore the wasteland and all its various possibilities. But, yeah, thanks Bethesda. You did a wonderful marketing job. Can I say something positive about it? Graphically, it looks better, though it's not impressive. Mods and crafting stuff are better (but the system as a whole got worse, as I said). It's not a next-gen open-world game (loading screens still there, not that I'd with that, if the game was good). Oh, yeah, what's really good about it are the promotional videos: it felt like a movie, really nice. The intro is so cool! The dialogues, voice acting? Forgettable, irrelevant. The announced it as a big thing - it's not. Every time I pick a lock it goes: ''got it'' or sth like that. Wow, I think I'd stick with Lone Wanderer's silence. 7hrs into the game. Don't feel like playing another second, and it all seemed like a big waste so far. I couldn't care less about settlements, companions, the brotherhood (in other games, it's a mysterious, attractive thing, like the Enclave), or the Minutemen (all good guys, let's rally up, that's basically it).

You know what's the worst thing about it? It was a big success, commercially, I mean. I was SO excited about it. Counting the days, really. Into the game, I was excited too. As I played, I just couldn't believe that was it... . It feels like an experiment... a bad idea, much more fragmented than any other game in the franchise. Why is it a bad thing that the game is commercially successful? Tod Howard and Bethesda peeps may interpret that this a revolutionary game, it's so successful, and in fact it's not. A lot of people wrote about it, and a lot of us wanted to see the good side of it, that may be the reason why there are good reviews. It's a big fail, though. 4/10 so far. I honestly had more fun playing an Indie text-based game called 'Emily is Away' on Steam - and it's for free.

I may be overreacting... but it's what I FELT so far - and it was mostly about disappointment. It was a hellishly busy week when I played it for the first time. Maybe I need to take some more time. Bethesda simply got it wrong: for me, what is essential are the RPG elements and a rich world, full of lore.

What I find acceptable: settlements? I don't much care about it, as I said, but I see no harm in it. But I feel the game should feel more like a whole (and NV, despite all its craziness, is the best at that), things should be consequential, or else why would I care about planting melons? I think there's plenty of room for improvement, though. Power armors: I'm not sure if I like it. I think there some nice touches: the fuel (only logical) and the way you see through it. But I think it is a little overpowered. Shooting: yeah, OK, but it should be more intuitive (you may never find out about some things, like leaning).

 

[naossano]

Todd kept his promise. The game works... Until the next crash...

 

[Askorti]

Todd kept his promise. The game works... Until the next crash...

Oh, of course it works. A broken clock is right two times a day too.

 

[Gizmojunk]

The [somewhat] realistic choice is to have them attack their victim's on sight, and be unapproachable; yet have a few quest paths that lead to a sponsored introduction, provided the PC has made committal choices that irrevocably made them raider material, or that their mission is infiltration ~in the style of "Point Break", and preferably with the same risks to their faction reputations.

 

[hindenburg]

snip

I'd like it too. But I honestly feel like Bethesda is incapable. If that's the case, then I'd rather they just give up and make a half decent action game. I will have to say now that I'm at the Institute, the dialog is so immersion breaking that I wish they would've just made a linear story without any options whatsoever.

I'll just wait for Obsidian to make something interesting. I'll take an action game that can occupy me for about 20 hours before I get bored with it over Fallout 3, which I was bored with within 5 hours. Deciding to make less of something you're unsuccessful at, is still a good strategy as far as I'm concerned. Not so good for Fallout's lore or world, but I wasn't ever expecting this game to have an interesting storyline or characters. I mean, the bar was so low that I was immediately impressed they came up with the Institute, because I just didn't want to see them rehash old Fallout villains on the East Coast for another round. I'm still impressed by that. And I mean, if that's surpassed your expectations, then interesting characters and a rich, malleable storyline were probably never even imagineable. And they're still not.

that's all i was saying, i guess

 

[retrocore9]

I'm going to keep positive on this post since my others have been negative on Fallout 4 and there are things it does well.

1. It's a fun action-rpg. Though the rpg is really for leveling and skill maintenance not the rpg elements we expect (trying..to..stay positive!)
2. I like that power armor is huge, limited and overpowering. It's a return to Fallout 1 in that way.
3. I do like the environment. The intact buildings are kept to a minimum and are not as plentiful as the previews made them out to be.
4. Great combat.
5. The fallout set designs, pip boy animations etc are well done.

 

[Dr Fallout]

snip

1. That's exactly the point. They don't know you, they have no reason to want to know you, you are just some guy, and they are raiders, people who, by definition, raid others to survive. You are their standard target.

2. Except Fallout has always been based on Mad Max. Literally, its one of the CORE aspects of the series it is massive Mad Max inspirations, along with "a boy and his dog". And no, the only game where you could interact with raider groups outside killing them was NV, and a very small non-canon quest in Fallout 1 where you could join the Khans for no reason and that never went anywhere.

3. They are raiders, and are primitive by definition since they don't have anything resembling aggriculture, which is why they have to rely on stealing from others to survive. Smart people don't form raider groups, they form cities, empires, and nations.

4. Then you did them a favor, and now they get the chance to kill you, and take all your stuff, as well as the stuff of the group you just killed and left behind, with no effort being needed on their part since you already killed everyone.

5. That is literally the exact definition of every raider group. If they weren't scavenging to survive, they wouldn't be raiders, they would be farmers.

You have a really close minded and unrealistic definition of raiders. So in your world they're all drugged up freaks who are insane and kill anyone they meet? Hmm, how do they expand? Maybe they bring back their fellows from the dead, because by your logic they do nothing but raid. That's stupid and stretches credibility a lot.

1. By that logic how can raider gangs grow? They're not all related and from the same vault, they need to get member from SOMEWHERE, I don't care even if it's Magic Land but how can they grow or survive if they don't recruit... some random guy.

2. Yes it has, but not the point where raiders (apart from the fiends) are drugged up insane killers. The majority have goals, and there are small groups of people that roam the wastes, the ones that fit your criteria. Sadly that's just it, they're weak as fuck. You just contradicted yourself there, by stating that you can nonviolently interact with gangs only in Fallout NV when providing one where you can do it in Fallout 1. Not to forget that joining them isn't the single definition of interacting them nonviolently. You can save Tandi without harming them at all you do realize right?

3. They're only primitive because you apply the Mad Max style to every fucking group. That's not logical, and as we've seen with the earlier games they can be reasoned with, even if it's in a small manner. Sorry, but your definition of raider is kind... well wrong in cases. This is the common definition, 'a person who attacks an enemy in their territory'. Where does it say steal or being stupid savages? The Vikings were raiders and yet they had agriculture, culture and smart scholars/poets hence the whole 'they're stupid and smart people would form countries' reeks of ignorance.

4. 'facepalm'

You killed a whole gang, and suddenly you're easy pickings for another similar sized gang? Logic!

5. Sorry mate, it actually isn't. Look up to see what the definition actually is.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

I'm going to keep positive on this post since my others have been negative on Fallout 4 and there are things it does well.

1. It's a fun action-rpg. Though the rpg is really for leveling and skill maintenance not the rpg elements we expect (trying..to..stay positive!)
2. I like that power armor is huge, limited and overpowering. It's a return to Fallout 1 in that way.
3. I do like the environment. The intact buildings are kept to a minimum and are not as plentiful as the previews made them out to be.
4. Great combat.
5. The fallout set designs, pip boy animations etc are well done.

Agreed. I despise how RPG now means MMORPG though (in the sense that putting repetitive grinds in singleplayer games just for leveling with no ultimate goal is now considered "deep").

Sorry, it's hard to even agree with your positive statements without tacking on the word "but," but I do agree with you. It's got some great things.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

snip

1. That's exactly the point. They don't know you, they have no reason to want to know you, you are just some guy, and they are raiders, people who, by definition, raid others to survive. You are their standard target.

2. Except Fallout has always been based on Mad Max. Literally, its one of the CORE aspects of the series it is massive Mad Max inspirations, along with "a boy and his dog". And no, the only game where you could interact with raider groups outside killing them was NV, and a very small non-canon quest in Fallout 1 where you could join the Khans for no reason and that never went anywhere.

3. They are raiders, and are primitive by definition since they don't have anything resembling aggriculture, which is why they have to rely on stealing from others to survive. Smart people don't form raider groups, they form cities, empires, and nations.

4. Then you did them a favor, and now they get the chance to kill you, and take all your stuff, as well as the stuff of the group you just killed and left behind, with no effort being needed on their part since you already killed everyone.

5. That is literally the exact definition of every raider group. If they weren't scavenging to survive, they wouldn't be raiders, they would be farmers.

You have a really close minded and unrealistic definition of raiders. So in your world they're all drugged up freaks who are insane and kill anyone they meet? Hmm, how do they expand? Maybe they bring back their fellows from the dead, because by your logic they do nothing but raid. That's stupid and stretches credibility a lot.

1. By that logic how can raider gangs grow? They're not all related and from the same vault, they need to get member from SOMEWHERE, I don't care even if it's Magic Land but how can they grow or survive if they don't recruit... some random guy.

2. Yes it has, but not the point where raiders (apart from the fiends) are drugged up insane killers. The majority have goals, and there are small groups of people that roam the wastes, the ones that fit your criteria. Sadly that's just it, they're weak as fuck. You just contradicted yourself there, by stating that you can nonviolently interact with gangs only in Fallout NV when providing one where you can do it in Fallout 1. Not to forget that joining them isn't the single definition of interacting them nonviolently. You can save Tandi without harming them at all you do realize right?

3. They're only primitive because you apply the Mad Max style to every fucking group. That's not logical, and as we've seen with the earlier games they can be reasoned with, even if it's in a small manner. Sorry, but your definition of raider is kind... well wrong in cases. This is the common definition, 'a person who attacks an enemy in their territory'. Where does it say steal or being stupid savages? The Vikings were raiders and yet they had agriculture, culture and smart scholars/poets hence the whole 'they're stupid and smart people would form countries' reeks of ignorance.

4. 'facepalm'

You killed a whole gang, and suddenly you're easy pickings for another similar sized gang? Logic!

5. Sorry mate, it actually isn't. Look up to see what the definition actually is.

The raiders were written with a variety of dialogue that has no bearing on player interaction with them - it's all pre-scripted dialogue. This, coupled with the stories that are in the computer terminals of raider hideouts, works for the first couple times. Then you realize it was just a cop-out so they didn't have to spend time making complex interaction with raiders - those terminals with raider journal entries are interesting at first and then progress to a cop-out when you realize it's the only interaction you have with them. A good idea taken too far.

Are raiders done better than Fallout 3? I'd say so, except Fallout 3 had Paradise Falls and other areas where you could talk to these types of folk. So actually in some sense they're actually worse.

I do like that they have set areas where you can stumble upon more *environmental storytelling* but when you realize that it's the only storytelling happening it gets old.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Some more positives:
As previously mentioned, the feral ghouls are well done. Shooting both their arms off makes them attempt to kick you with futility. Shooting their legs off makes them try to get out you from the floor. Quite well done all things considered.

The AI during combat is definitely better than Fallout 3 (but the companion AI is a whole other story).

 

[Dr Fallout]

Some more positives:
As previously mentioned, the feral ghouls are well done. Shooting both their arms off makes them attempt to kick you with futility. Shooting their legs off makes them try to get out you from the floor. Quite well done all things considered.

The AI during combat is definitely better than Fallout 3 (but the companion AI is a whole other story).

Sorry did you say Feral ghouls? I think you meant zombies.