What was the point of Fallout 4's story?

Fancy Raiders is still Raiders.

I mean, that Bethesda is too lazy to flesh out the tribal identities of their human cannon fodder is sort of irrelevant. Raiders are simply any group of wastelanders that engage in pillaging as a means to support themselves. The Jackals, Vipers, Khans (all Khans), Bishop's Mercenaries, those Yakuza folks in Fallout 2, the Fiends, those greasers in the New Vegas Sewers, Maude's Muggers, the White Legs, and the Dead Horses are all raiders. Bethesda is for the most part not interested in them beyond "something to shoot that shoots back" though.

The raiders in 3 and 4 are always hostile also. In New Vegas you could walk right in to the fiends base camp. You could pass a speech check and not be attacked
 
The raiders in 3 and 4 are always hostile also. In New Vegas you could walk right in to the fiends base camp. You could pass a speech check and not be attacked

I'm actually quite fine with the idea that there are non-negotiable hostile threats in an open world wasteland. It actually gives a pacifist or an unskilled fighter a bit of risk and a reason to avoid open roads. That's what I consider immersion. So long as the entire map isn't plastered with them like orc dungeons.

That said, I wish bandits in the wasteland would actually stop you and tell you to give them items of value rather than just immediately attack you. It's not like Bethesda's engine makes it impossible - the Elder Scrolls is filled with this. I know it's the post-apocalypse, but still.
 
I'm actually quite fine with the idea that there are non-negotiable hostile threats in an open world wasteland. It actually gives a pacifist or an unskilled fighter a bit of risk and a reason to avoid open roads. That's what I consider immersion. So long as the entire map isn't plastered with them like orc dungeons.

That said, I wish bandits in the wasteland would actually stop you and tell you to give them items of value rather than just immediately attack you. It's not like Bethesda's engine makes it impossible - the Elder Scrolls is filled with this. I know it's the post-apocalypse, but still.

Sure there will be some gangs that attack just because but other gangs might want to recruit someone that can handle themselves. If some of the raider gangs could give you quests to do bad guy stuff it would add to the game for sure
 
I was around 13. I'm not saying the story was played out well, I'm just saying that it was at least a little more interesting that Fallout 4's story.

The point I'm trying to make is that both stories are terrible, and the only reason you favor 3's is because you played it first - and during your early development. In fact, I'd argue that Fallout 4's story is largely much more coherent than 3's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostalgia
 
It was still a good game in its own right. Not perfect by any means, but there were a lot of games worse than it back at the time (not before it, during the year of its release). Besides, at the time when I first played it, I don't think I knew the difference between RPGs and other genres, so I wasn't looking for a story, just an experience.

But yeah, I do agree that nostalgia plays a large factor into it. I would say that for my experience with a lot of other games, too. It affects everyone, really. Fallout 3 also played a role into me learning how to navigate an open-world game, since I'm very sure it was one of the first open-world games I ever played. I think that due to how the human brain works, you can't ever get rid of the influence of nostalgia (especially if the memory was during your childhood) no matter how hard you try.

I would personally disagree on that Fallout 4's story is more coherent, though. It's largely inconsistent, with poor pacing, and it's clear there's more effort put into some parts than others. Fallout 3, while conveying a simple and short story, has a plot that is a lot less likely to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. But again, that could simply be nostalgia. :shrug:

Like I wrote about here once, I had a crack at Fallout 3 for the first time, left the Vault for five minutes and got killed by a Mr Gutsy, and shelved the game for the next few years because the whole thing spooked me. It seems ridiculous looking back now.
 
Sure there will be some gangs that attack just because but other gangs might want to recruit someone that can handle themselves. If some of the raider gangs could give you quests to do bad guy stuff it would add to the game for sure
"Raiders" should be hostile, Gunners and Triggermen should be recruiting. Also I'm sure the raiders aren't hiring seeing as how they out number non-hostile wastelanders like 10 to 1.
 
I'm actually quite fine with the idea that there are non-negotiable hostile threats in an open world wasteland. It actually gives a pacifist or an unskilled fighter a bit of risk and a reason to avoid open roads. That's what I consider immersion. So long as the entire map isn't plastered with them like orc dungeons.

In New Vegas what really makes the Vipers, Jackals, Scorpions, and various unspecified affiliation raiders work as "automatically hostile" is that some of the Raider groups who are in positions of strength (Khans, Fiends, Powder Gangers probably) can be approached peacefully and talked to. This helps humanize them, and shows that Raiders aren't automatically ravening monsters out for blood, they're just in a position where they have decided "taking from others" is the best way to get what they want.

More or less only the especially desperate Raider groups should attack you on sight (because their need for stuff is desperate to outweigh self-preservation, what with being desperate), and for the most part that's how NV does it.
 
"Raiders" should be hostile, Gunners and Triggermen should be recruiting. Also I'm sure the raiders aren't hiring seeing as how they out number non-hostile wastelanders like 10 to 1.

Where the hell do the raiders get their recruits though? Was the 'peaceful' population massive before the raiders came, and they took what, 70% of the pop for their ranks?
 
Where the hell do the raiders get their recruits though? Was the 'peaceful' population massive before the raiders came, and they took what, 70% of the pop for their ranks?
Had BGS been bothered to write a decent narrative there's a case to made for generational tribes that intermingle with each other. Honestly had I written it I would made gangs more like the ones in the movie "The Warriors" and added some ambient dialogue of them saying "Come out to play."
 
Honestly this is a brilliant idea. The Next Fallout game *needs* baseball mime raiders.
I was actually thinking about that for a mod idea. uniforms and bats are already in the game but I've only ever messed with the geck in FNV for myself and never added/removed anything from leveled lists before.
 
The point I'm trying to make is that both stories are terrible, and the only reason you favor 3's is because you played it first - and during your early development. In fact, I'd argue that Fallout 4's story is largely much more coherent than 3's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostalgia
By all means, I can't stand Fallout 3's story. I even replayed Fallout 3 right before picking up a copy of Fallout 4. I just felt like Fallout 3 actually accomplished what it was trying to do which was create a very personal story. In Fallout 4, they tried to make another personal story, but you usually get so wrapped up in helping other factions that you never have time to focus on the main point of the game, finding your son and starting anew. Even when you do find your son, he immediately asks you to help take over the Commonwealth, which if you are playing the hero (not like there's much of a choice), it immediately ruins that attachment for your son since you never spent enough time with him in the beginning of the game. At least in Fallout 3, you see that your dad had to go through the hardships of losing his wife, and raising you as a single father. Then he goes missing from the vault, and while I still didn't have much of an attachment to my dad in the game, it was more of an attachment than I had towards Shaun.
 
In Fallout 4 if Nate/Nora simply never woke up from cryogenic stasis, what happens really?
Institute wipes out Railroad as they are hanging by a thread. Minutemen get wiped by regular raiders. So it depends on BOS or The Institute. If BOS wins then they... Uh... Kill shit? Until they get bored and leave for their next epic adventure? And The Institute will probably just seal themselves away and circlejerk each other to death.

So if Nate/Nora never woke up then The Commonwealth would probably largely be the same as it was at the start of the game. Except for less kidnappings, no Railroad myth and Minutemen gone and perhaps a decrease in raiders and super mutants.

Doesn't feel like any of the main factions really matter all that much in a big picture way.
 
Both aspects of the game were absolute trash, a personal story doesn't belong in Fallout, and having a four-way war plot when nothing really possesses a threat is pointless

I mean what threat did the Institute actually have? They admitted they only want the nuclear device to work underground in peace... Yet everyone makes them out to be an army about to invade the commonwealth. The BOS overreacted, the Railroad's mission is impossible (make all synths equal) and the Minutemen was dead. In the end the Institute should have been a side faction (like NV's Khans and Boomers) and not a major player, because they were a passive group
 
Fancy Raiders is still Raiders.

I mean, that Bethesda is too lazy to flesh out the tribal identities of their human cannon fodder is sort of irrelevant. Raiders are simply any group of wastelanders that engage in pillaging as a means to support themselves. The Jackals, Vipers, Khans (all Khans), Bishop's Mercenaries, those Yakuza folks in Fallout 2, the Fiends, those greasers in the New Vegas Sewers, Maude's Muggers, the White Legs, and the Dead Horses are all raiders. Bethesda is for the most part not interested in them beyond "something to shoot that shoots back" though.

The Forged north of Finch's Farm and Libertalia were both wasted potentials of subfactions that could have had more of a culture and identity to them. Imagine the "emotional impact" it would have been to come across Libertalia, befriend the locals there, and help out around the floating village, before working with Gabriel and helping him establish a friendlier relation with the nearby settlements. Effectively turning a would-be raider stronghold into a large trade settlement.

And then later in the game being told Gabriel is a rogue synth, and having the choice to kill or defend him against institute forces. Or perhaps warning him ahead of time.

This game's subfactions could have been so much more.
 
The point of FO4 was to make millions so Todd could buy mountains of cocaine. Whatever ideas he gets while gettin' high will be added to the next game.

Kidding of course, but FO4 is definitely still a shit sandwich. The point of it was to see how much they could get away with removing yet more staple aspects from the originals series, while making it as mainstream as possible, but be praised for it. And that backfired beautifully in the end.
 
The point of FO4 was to make millions so Todd could buy mountains of cocaine. Whatever ideas he gets while gettin' high will be added to the next game.

Kidding of course, but FO4 is definitely still a shit sandwich. The point of it was to see how much they could get away with removing yet more staple aspects from the originals series, while making it as mainstream as possible, but be praised for it. And that backfired beautifully in the end.

The backfire wasn't as big as I had hoped sadly, but it still served as a remainder that Bethesda can't always sell crap and get away with it.
 
The backfire wasn't as big as I had hoped sadly, but it still served as a remainder that Bethesda can't always sell crap and get away with it.

I am still amazed how on Steam 80% of 48.000+ people still reviewed it positive, if this continues Bethesda will definitely get away with it. The only way of not getting away with it is Fallout 4 get a negative score in Steam so other users won't buy it or something, but then there is still the console players which are even more than the PC ones and just with the console sales Bethesda will still get away with it.

Also there are thousands of fanboys that go on the Bethesda forum and praise Fallout 4 all day long and beat up anyone that tries to point out the negative aspects of the game, so the voices Bethesda will ever listen to are those fanboys and just dismiss the negative opinions.

They will always win while getting millions of dollars of profit no matter what reviews they get and how much bad criticism they get.
 
Back
Top