So I've played Fallout 4...

Discussion in 'Fallout 4' started by mef, Jan 5, 2019.

  1. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Sep 17, 2016
    The problem with this argument is it falls flat immediately.

    "More clean water is a good thing."

    You can drink it, you can trade it, you can build an economy on it, you can use it to grow healthier planets. The same reason it's useful in Fallout.

    I'm sorry, but we can use more clean water on OUR WORLD and people actually think it's a bad plot point in Fallout 3.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  2. Cobra Commander

    Cobra Commander Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Dec 6, 2016
    How can you find Skyrim the best game of all time, Fallout 3 the second and at the same time, not like Fallout 4?

    They are pretty much the same game, a giant map full of junk to collect and things to kill
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2
  3. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Sep 17, 2016
    Basically, the problems with Fallout 4 are the following:

    * The game more or less doesn't change the responses you get for whatever you say or do in the game. Hate newspapers, love newspapers, then characters react the same.

    * The game only really has two endings despite four factions with the conversations identical unless it's the Institute being destroyed or the BOS.

    * Fallout 4 has a dozen settlements that are all effectively identical one person places to build and lacks the character of the various little places you visit in F3.

    * There was the option to be evil in Fallout 3 while you are just a goody-goody in Fallout 4 no matter what you want.
    At least until Nuka World.

    * The TEDIOUS settlement building that substitutes for regular gameplay and you're forced to participate in.

    * The nonsensical Legendary loot mechanics like Healing Armor and Ice Flamers.

    * Say what you will about Fallout 3 but at least all of the villain motivations make sense. We never find out what Father thinks his
    plan for the Institute is or why the BOS suddenly wants to nuke the Institute versus taking its stuff.

    * The reuse of Liberty Prime.

    * The complete lack of continuity as compared to Fallout 3 with no mention of the Lone Wanderer or other characters while others are just summarily killed off.

    * The lack of a dark and somber radioactive Wasteland, replaced more by generic wilderness.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  4. R.Graves

    R.Graves Confirmed Retard

    Apr 21, 2016
    in the real world, yes. in fallout 1, yes. but in fallout 3 it would seem that more clean water would only improve the lives of like 3 people, tops. no needs or seems to have much of a desire for it.

    its not the plot point. its the way its presented . in fallout 1 there's no water because its set in a desert. in fallout 3 there's tons of water and everyone's been drinking it just fine with no ill effects. so obviously the water isn't even that bad. so why do they need better water?
    the game tells you the people of the captital wasteland need purified water badly. at the same time, the game presents a cast of characters that are more concerned with literally anything else.

    "i want a violin"
    "i want soda pop"
    "i want a live mine"

    seriously the only people who need water are 3 bums and a couple people in a random event.

    to paraphrase someone whose name i've long forgotten,

    "this is like if in skyrim the MQ kept insisting that dragons are a big problem but we never see any but occasionally a peasant will show up needing a healing potion because a dragon attacked offscreen"

    the game insist there's a problem rather than showing it. nothing in the game supports that more clean water would be a good thing apart from james and some bums. if you can't see how pitiful that is then you're an outright dunce, my dude.
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  5. Cobra Commander

    Cobra Commander Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Dec 6, 2016
    Got it. The way you talk, I thought some of these things did not matter. It's basically my reasons as well, with a few different things.
  6. mef

    mef Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    Dec 29, 2014
    fallout 3 has one ending
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 4
  7. KingArthur

    KingArthur Yeehaw Johnny Reb

    Jun 25, 2018
    Oh yeah, well you’re... ghey

    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  8. Norzan

    Norzan Vault Fossil

    Apr 7, 2017
    In Fallout 1 is out of extreme necessity, in Fallout 3 is just because. There's an huge difference, in Fallout 1 it adds an huge amount of urgency to the game, for Fallout 3 it adds nothing because the wasteland has been fine according to the stupid setting. So why the sudden need of more water when people have been surviving just fine? There's no urgency in Fallout 3.

    There's also the issue of how the need of water is presented. Daddy dearest claims the wasteland needs water, but the wasteland doesn't seem to care. It hardly affects anything besides a few people. It's the same crap in Skyrim where the dragons and civil war hardly affect anything or people barely care about it, even though they are supposed to be major events. Then look at New Vegas, the NCR-Legion war is affecting EVERYTHING. A lot people constantly mention it, some wonder who will win, some don't want one to win, several side quests are affected by this war. There's this thing in the air that any moment this war will explode.

    Here's another huge difference: In Fallout 1 is your vault that needs the water. It's the place you grew up in and it's all you know your entire life. In Fallout 3 is the damn wasteland, a place you never been, never interacted with and you shouldn't care about it. The game pathetically tries to make you care about the wasteland because daddy dearest basically says you should, but there's absolutely no reason for you to care. Besides the premise being a blatant rehash of the first game, it doesn't work nowhere as much as Fallout 1. Fuck, it hardly works at all.

    The design philosophy of the game also clashes with the premise. Daddy dearest claims the wasteland needs water so badly, but the devs say you should fuck around in the world and do sidequests. You can't have the main quest claim to have so much urgency and tell the player that they can explore at their own leisure. It makes whatever urgency the premise could have just disappear. This crap has been in Bethesda games since Oblivion and it's something that needs to go away.

    You also claim other people's argument "fall apart" when yours are so fucking bad that they have absolutely no legs to stand on. They either have nothing to do with the criticism (like comparing the premises of two games, completely missing why people even criticize the story in one of the games) or come up with arguments so weak like "more water is good".
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 4
  9. SquidVan

    SquidVan Pirate and Bankrobber

    Jun 1, 2018
    1. Star Wars is in space

    2. Star Trek is in space

    It is the same plot.

    1. Mad Max has fast cars in it

    2. Fast & Furious has fast cars in it

    It is the same plot.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 7
  10. R.Graves

    R.Graves Confirmed Retard

    Apr 21, 2016
    actually with Broken Steel installed it technically has no ending.
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2019
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 7
  11. NMLevesque

    NMLevesque Commie Ghost

    Jul 2, 2016
    Scroll up to the words "false equivalency", which you quoted previously. I honestly don't even know why I bother when people lose the thread so quickly.

    Hardly better is still better. Barter and science are also common in dialogue. A gap in quality is still a gap in quality. And that was just one example, but I don't see much of a point in making you backpeddle any further.

    Most of the map isn't a tunnel interior. Also, doesn't that describe the Metro series? (never played it myself)
  12. R.Graves

    R.Graves Confirmed Retard

    Apr 21, 2016
    and yet you still spend 90% of the game in tunnels or if you wanna be technical "corridors" shooting things. that or you're in a big empty map shooting things. what's the difference?
    metro has shooting that doesn't feel like bad assplay and is a shooter.
    except to this day i have no idea what col autumn was trying to do or why he wanted to do it. all i know is he didn't like Eden and even that is never brought up in the MQ.
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2019
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  13. NMLevesque

    NMLevesque Commie Ghost

    Jul 2, 2016
    That may be your experience (sounds doubtful), but mileage varies. If you want to move the goalposts to "corridors" that's still an exaggeration in this case, accurate for lots of other games, and not in itself a criticism. It tells us nothing about whether that's a good or bad thing, let alone why.

    Ooh, I'm sorry. The answer was actually 'yes', not 'change the subject'. Better luck next time.

    Though shallow and poorly done, that much *is* actually clear from his dialogue. Which was discussed recently in another thread. Dialogue files are on the wiki.
  14. R.Graves

    R.Graves Confirmed Retard

    Apr 21, 2016
    lol no. almost anyone who plays the game is gonna spend 90% of their time shooting things to HACKIN AND WACKIN ADN SMACKIN and the game is very fond of funneling you into tunnels and corridors with enemies in them all but forcing you to play the game as an FPS because the dungeons aren't exactly designed with stealth in mind either so no the goalposts have not been moved. tunnels and corridors are functionally the same thing from a game design perspective.
    lol you know why. its presented as an rpg and has really shit shooting. if the devs were intelligent and played to the game's strengths (and the literal purpose of an rpg) they wouldn't have made so many forced FPS segments. this ain't hard.
    i refuse to even acknowledge this blatant false equivalency.
    no its not.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2
  15. SquidVan

    SquidVan Pirate and Bankrobber

    Jun 1, 2018
    I'm not really sure what you two are even arguing about at this point but corridor shooting, like most things, can be done well or poorly. Just because it's all Metro is, doesn't on its own merits make it shit. There are examples of open world being good and bad depending on how they're designed. I'd argue that the same could be said about Metro and Fallout 3's metros.
    Seems to me that Graves was saying "Yes, Metro is also corridor/tunnel/whatever term shooting but the game works well with it due to the systems in the game." Because a game that is focused on shooting that feels good to play in that manner, will in fact feel better than the shooting mechanics in a game that skimped on them.
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2019
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 4
  16. NMLevesque

    NMLevesque Commie Ghost

    Jul 2, 2016
    Still moving the goalposts I see. It would be a lot easier to just say that you made a mistake, and meant corridors. It would also be the adult thing to do. 90% is still an exaggeration, but let's just take this one step at a time.

    For the sake of argument, let's say I do. It'd still be your responsibility to make your own argument.

    The shooting is shit and overemphasized, yes. Congratulations on making a valid point...that isn't about the original argument. To wit, changing the map wouldn't fix anything if shooting was still shit and overemphasized. Fixing shooting or emphasizing other mechanics is what would solve this problem.

    I'm sure I'm not the first person to tell you this, but you really can't admit when you're wrong.

    Sorry, but 'nuhuh' is not a valid rebuttal. Try again.
  17. R.Graves

    R.Graves Confirmed Retard

    Apr 21, 2016
    yeah you're right. the majority of time is spent doing nothing looking for things to shoot.
    how is it moving goalposts if i just simply corrected myself?
    but the map would still be bad and underdeveloped so....
    that's because i wasn't wrong.
    its all i'm willing to give when someone outright lies to me.
  18. NMLevesque

    NMLevesque Commie Ghost

    Jul 2, 2016
    I'd say, looting, managing inventory, and fetching are frequent occupations.

    You did not phrase it as a correction. You clearly wrote it as a reaffirmation of your position, while changing what you were arguing. To correct yourself, you'd have to at the very least make reference to the fact that what you're saying is different....rather than just saying something different.

    You can't seem to decide if you're committing to the statement I first replied to, or if you meant something else and have as such changed your argument. I didn't sign up to be in opposition to whatever you feel like you mean at any given moment. You said something wrong. I corrected it. You doubled down and said a bunch of other silly things. At this point it isn't even possible for you to be without error here.

    You're in no position to talk about lying, but I am curious, what exactly did I lie about?[/QUOTE]
  19. Orius

    Orius First time out of the vault

    Jul 23, 2018
    In spite of having problems with FO3, I felt less fulfilled playing FO4 over playing FO3. FO4 played like a checkbox ticker. Clear out enemies at Point A while picking up magazines and bobbleheads and discover locations at Point B. I felt like I spent more time ensuring I collected everything than actually playing someone interacting with a world, ensuring that I maximize affinity with every companion so that I could get that sweet perk, ensuring that I collect every weapon and display in my framerate-breaking settlement that I'll rarely visit unless I need to modify my gun (and even then, I'd much rather skip the inconvenience of fast-travel loading and just cheat-console crafting items into the nearest weapon workbench). Having finally completed the game just now despite my best effort in over five years, I could say easily that this has been an exhausting experience I'll probably not revisit again in another 3-5 years. It just feels so unfulfilling, even with quest mods installed. I had the Brotherhood destroy the Institute and the Railroad and all I got was a pat on the back. And other than the ending, the rest of the game just feels like tourism through Boston mixed with amusement park shooting galleries. 80% of the game had you either 1) accepting quests because you want to help people, or 2) accepting quests because caps. There's rarely a middle ground like New Vegas where you side with a group of raiders and destroy a settlement. Yes, Nuka World technically had that, but god, it's such a shallow way to implement that. The raiders are no different than your default settlers. They act like your default settlers, requiring food, shelter and water, but no different than that. They don't actively go out on missions to destroy other settlements. Your reputation isn't ruined anywhere in the Commonwealth other than with Preston (and god, even the way Preston got pissy was so lazily implemented too; at least add a whole fucking quest with me and Preston fighting to the death or something).

    Sigh. Fallout 4 left me feeling like I've just wasted an entire month doing nothing. It didn't make me feel fulfilled. It didn't leave me feeling like I've experienced a world where I truly had a hand in shaping people's lives, interesting unique people with their own stories. But I digress. Back to FO3.

    FO3 might have shared FO4's broken roleplaying foundation, and then some, but at least it bothered to have a lot more options in how you want your character to feel like. There's a fulfillment that comes from your actions having visible and solid consequences of which you could first-hand experience (not through a series of fucking slideshow). Blowing up Megaton, enslaving Red, killing everyone in Tranquility Lane, killing everyone in Underworld, having Three-Dog being disgusted by your repulsive actions, etc, etc. These all have meaningful effects you could experience for yourself the way one would experience having to shoot a certain character in the back yourself in Mass Effect 3 because you neglected to save the genophage cure in Mass Effect 2. So yes, FO3 is a far better RPG in that sense because it at least lets the player experience the wickedness of their actions first-hand, albeit not in the kind of meaningful ways in Dragon Age: Origins, a far better RPG than both FO3 and FO4 combined (you could literally recruit the villain in DA:O if you decide your character is a pragmatic person who sees the war in terms of ruthless calculus, but you can't recruit Kellogg without a mod).

    I think that's what it comes down to, really, the ability to make decisions on what kind of player experience you could have. Whereas FO4 is a one-way road with (sometimes) two lanes that merge back into the single road, FO3 is more of a two-lane road from the start. It's not much of an improvement for an RPG, but it's something.