Who else here LIKED Fallout 4?

CT Phipps said:
Given I defend video games as an art form as well as comic books and fantasy novels, I find the idea of the two being mutually exclusive to be quite problematic. History is full of larger than life epic heroes who accomplish many amazing and wonderful things while telling timeless stories. Odysseus, himself, is the smartest AND most badass man in the world.

Roleplaying is essentially telling a story with a tool set.
Click to expand...

Defending them as art is fine, judging them as if they were comparable is moronic.

Apart from being entirely different mediums with entirely different intended audiences, Fallout 4 and the Odyssey were written roughly 3000 years apart. Implying that they should be compared is like saying that Sumerian statuettes and the modern architecture should be, too.

Either way, like everything else, a medium does not define a piece. Anything can be art, but just because something is a film or a painting or a book or a comic doesn't establish whether or not it is. Watchmen is a comic, and I consider it art. Fast and Furious, whilst entertaining, is not. Just because some video games are art doesn't mean all of them are, and Fallout 4 is certainly not one of them (at least as we define art as of now, but that's an entirely different can of worms).

The Odyssey's age is also important to consider; while Fallout 4 has the benefit of thirty centuries worth of advancements in prose and narrative conventions, the Odyssey was one of the first widespread texts of the western world; it is considered art because it helped define what art even is in our eyes. Fallout 4, meanwhile, has done nothing to live up to any of its predecessors, which is what one would expect of a sequel; hell, it doesn't even live up to any decent story, since it has an incredibly flimsy internal consistency.

I'd also like to point out that the reason Ulysses was such an unstoppable badass is because the character development wasn't the focus of the Odyssey; the journey was. You don't read the epic to see Ulysses struggle with his loneliness, you read it to witness him fool a Cyclops with a clever trick or overcome the temptations of Circes. Fallout 4, meanwhile, purports to be about character not just through legacy, but its own advertising; thus, one would reasonably expect it to have good ones or, at the very least, decently written ones.

And apart from anything else, Ulysses had a fucking character to him. Fallout 4's protagonist is trapped in a wishy-washy limbo between a cliched backstory and no backstory at all for the player's sake, with their entire character being thrown back and forth between the two camps in between the campaign and DLC because Bethesda can't make their minds up.


You seem like a decent dude and I don't mean to discredit you, but comparing Fallout 4 to the Odyssey (or in fact anything that isn't an action or RPG game) is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen on these forums.
 
No, I think Fallout 4's main character is completely boring.

Worse, you can't MAKE him interesting.

Which is the worst part of the game, IMHO.

And it's primary failure as an RPG.
 
Brivoo said:
Defending them as art is fine, judging them as if they were comparable is moronic.

Apart from being entirely different mediums with entirely different intended audiences, Fallout 4 and the Odyssey were written roughly 3000 years apart. Implying that they should be compared is like saying that Sumerian statuettes and the modern architecture should be, too.

Either way, like everything else, a medium does not define a piece. Anything can be art, but just because something is a film or a painting or a book or a comic doesn't establish whether or not it is. Watchmen is a comic, and I consider it art. Fast and Furious, whilst entertaining, is not. Just because some video games are art doesn't mean all of them are, and Fallout 4 is certainly not one of them (at least as we define art as of now, but that's an entirely different can of worms).

The Odyssey's age is also important to consider; while Fallout 4 has the benefit of thirty centuries worth of advancements in prose and narrative conventions, the Odyssey was one of the first widespread texts of the western world; it is considered art because it helped define what art even is in our eyes. Fallout 4, meanwhile, has done nothing to live up to any of its predecessors, which is what one would expect of a sequel; hell, it doesn't even live up to any decent story, since it has an incredibly flimsy internal consistency.

I'd also like to point out that the reason Ulysses was such an unstoppable badass is because the character development wasn't the focus of the Odyssey; the journey was. You don't read the epic to see Ulysses struggle with his loneliness, you read it to witness him fool a Cyclops with a clever trick or overcome the temptations of Circes. Fallout 4, meanwhile, purports to be about character not just through legacy, but its own advertising; thus, one would reasonably expect it to have good ones or, at the very least, decently written ones.

And apart from anything else, Ulysses had a fucking character to him. Fallout 4's protagonist is trapped in a wishy-washy limbo between a cliched backstory and no backstory at all for the player's sake, with their entire character being thrown back and forth between the two camps in between the campaign and DLC because Bethesda can't make their minds up.


You seem like a decent dude and I don't mean to discredit you, but comparing Fallout 4 to the Odyssey (or in fact anything that isn't an action or RPG game) is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen on these forums.
Click to expand...
I'd have it compared it to The Quixote, even. A lol whacky story on the surface, that portrays a whole time period and shows a symbol of romantic freedom, making a mark in modern literature.
Even Tirant Lo Blanch has more interesting combat set pieces, and the author was basically a medieval version of a gunporn consumer :shrug:
I'm just studying History of Art and the difference between "Art" and "Craft(manship)" we have been given is that the first is unique and made with a purpose(not coin) and at least some idea behind it.
If an "artistic" game is recurring to shitty overdone casual bait that it's trendy, I.e. Mine craft, Far Cry, Rust and Skyrim, then it's not unique, by no means has a purpose or intention beyond more money for Elder Scrolls and jacuzzis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arnust said:
I'd have it compared it to The Quixote, even. A lol whacky story on the surface, that portrays a whole time period and shows a symbol of romantic freedom, making a mark in modern literature.
Click to expand...

I suppose, but even then it isn't entirely fair.
You can compare narratives, yes, but neither the Odyssey nor The Quixote had to deal with game mechanics. Saying has more merit than the other (or indeed, that they have equal merit) is completely irrational without giving them a proper context (i.e. artistic contribution).

Arnust said:
I'm just studying History of Art and the difference between "Art" and "Craft(manship)" we have been given is that the first is unique and made with a purpose(not coin) and at least some idea behind it.
Click to expand...

I think art is rather hard to define, but it can mostly be agreed upon to be based on some form of expression, rather than personal gain.

(I realize that's just rewording what you said, but stick with me I have a point)

What I meant by saying that it might change is specifically relating to games. Video games as an industry were born and have developed as a means of entertainment, starting with something similar to a toy or board game but evolving further. Art, as it is now, can be said to be defined by the emotions it makes the viewer/reader/whateverer feel; however, the main path of development for most games is to provide new forms of stimulation, new ways to make the player solve a problem and ultimately enjoy themselves, kind of like a Rubix cube.

It may be that, in the future, this becomes its own form of art; whilst it's been done before in a few ways such as mystery novels where the reader can come to the conclusion on their own or the aforementioned Rubix cube, none have come as far as video games.
 
Guys, guys, guys, don't you get it? Demanding quality is nostalgia ! We have simply to stop living in the past, and accepting inferior products as the true definition of progress now! Otherwise, we will never be a part of the cool club of gamers and Fallout fans these days. You have to get this finally into your thick skulls! Role playing, doesn't need actuall role playing to be role playing! Dialog is for pussies. And limitations, are boring. As long as you can shoot stuff and do everything as you please, the game is perfect! Role Playing should be for everyone! Not just a few weirdos that love to crunch numbers and actually read ... stuff ... that is on a screen. You have to get with the times!
 
Crni Vuk said:
Guys, guys, guys, don't you get it? Demanding quality is nostalgia ! We have simply to stop living in the past, and accepting inferior products as the true definition of progress now! Otherwise, we will never be a part of the cool club of gamers and Fallout fans these days. You have to get this finally into your thick skulls! Role playing, doesn't need actuall role playing to be role playing! Dialog is for pussies. And limitations, are boring. As long as you can shoot stuff and do everything as you please, the game is perfect! Role Playing should be for everyone! Not just a few weirdos that love to crunch numbers and actually read ... stuff ... that is on a screen. You have to get with the times!
Click to expand...
I want my game to look and sound the same as everyone elses. I want the developer to tell me how to play, I don't want to waste my time on a video game. If my character isn't 100% the same as yours (minus aesthetics) I want a full refund.
Am I in the cool club now Mr. Vuk?
 
The Sole Survivor's biggest problems in Fallout 3 is they attempted to go with the Mass Effect and Witcher 3 style of gaming which I think is very much a poor choice with a game series that has depended strongly on projecting yourself into the protagonist and being able to create or play them as you see fit.

The Witcher 3 is undoubtedly an RPG even though Geralt of Rivia is a fully formed 3-dimensional character with all of his memories of the books as of the end of Assassins of Kings. However, you are able to make a massive number of decisions regarding which factions to choose, what kind of answers to make, and what kind of things to do. The writing is very crisp in the character and all decisions always "fit into Geralts character." If he sides with one side or another in a fight, it's because he has legitimate reasons to do so.

You'll never see Geralt of Rivia nuke Megaton, for example, but you might have him side with the Enclave or the Brotherhood of Steel or very rapidly hit the button which says, "This isn't my fight." Which is something the game really does well as making neutrality appealing is quite interesting.

Unfortunately, we don't KNOW the Sole Survivor the way we do the Witcher. Nor, honestly, should we, IMHO. You could very much make a Sole Survivor who is fully detailed and with all the personality intact but that is a drastic swerve from Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas let alone the previous games.

Despite this, I did have a good deal of roleplaying done in the Main Quest. The one benefit of the Four Factions system and the convoluted Main Quest is the fact you generally get to see all sides of the conflict before you finally decide who you're going to side with. In my case, my Good Karma in spirit if not mechanic Sole Survivor did the Institute and Raiders (Peaceful) as well as peace in Far Harbor. It required murder, duplicity, betrayal, and worse which actually was enjoyable as it didn't require just a hope and a prayer.

http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-moral-ambiguity-of-fallout-4.html

Ironically, in this respect, I really was invested in the story toward the end but the Sole Survivor's voice acting and writing only rarely showed actual emotion. Shaun's situation and Kellog are, appropriately, times he does emote but we don't get a chance to take a passionate stance on anything else.

So I roleplayed a man obsessed with peace at any costs and trying to do the right thing in a moral quagmire but I really would have had an easier time if I was a silent protagonist.

Which is sad.
 
Brivoo said:
I suppose, but even then it isn't entirely fair.
You can compare narratives, yes, but neither the Odyssey nor The Quixote had to deal with game mechanics. Saying has more merit than the other (or indeed, that they have equal merit) is completely irrational without giving them a proper context (i.e. artistic contribution).



I think art is rather hard to define, but it can mostly be agreed upon to be based on some form of expression, rather than personal gain.

(I realize that's just rewording what you said, but stick with me I have a point)

What I meant by saying that it might change is specifically relating to games. Video games as an industry were born and have developed as a means of entertainment, starting with something similar to a toy or board game but evolving further. Art, as it is now, can be said to be defined by the emotions it makes the viewer/reader/whateverer feel; however, the main path of development for most games is to provide new forms of stimulation, new ways to make the player solve a problem and ultimately enjoy themselves, kind of like a Rubix cube.

It may be that, in the future, this becomes its own form of art; whilst it's been done before in a few ways such as mystery novels where the reader can come to the conclusion on their own or the aforementioned Rubix cube, none have come as far as video games.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But what I tried to say is, every element in a proper game and work of art apports something to the whole, and the elimination of it would diminish the "focus" of it. So adding epic combats to The Quixote, erotica in the Oddisey or setting New Vegas in the DC Waateland would make less of them.
In Falluto you could slice or mod out almost everything and it would have the same idea: none
Of course, it's stupid to compare some of the best works of literature to Falluto 4, just said one of the "whackyest" had a whole lot more focus and purpose.
And I think video games can be art, imo. Some Walking Sims could be; Stanley Parable and The Beginners Guide, SOMA with less puzzles... We need a more obvious exemple yet, but I hope the indie scene shows some more jewels.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Guys, guys, guys, don't you get it? Demanding quality is nostalgia ! We have simply to stop living in the past, and accepting inferior products as the true definition of progress now! Otherwise, we will never be a part of the cool club of gamers and Fallout fans these days. You have to get this finally into your thick skulls! Role playing, doesn't need actuall role playing to be role playing! Dialog is for pussies. And limitations, are boring. As long as you can shoot stuff and do everything as you please, the game is perfect! Role Playing should be for everyone! Not just a few weirdos that love to crunch numbers and actually read ... stuff ... that is on a screen. You have to get with the times!
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, Just do as todd and pete say and just pretend in your head roleplay in any given role you want to play in their games that have little to no actual interaction with the game.
 
I have a real love/hate relationship with this game. It's fun in a mindless explore and goof around kind of way; the settlement building is fun if you're forgiving of the crummy building system, weird random encounters and enemies that fight each other can lead to bits of enjoyable mayhem, yet for everything that's somewhat fun, a glaring defect, a piece of bad writing and programming, or tedium offsets it. The game could have been good, instead of OK. The quests could have been varied with options to complete them yet most are linear shoot and loots. The writing's embarrassing and lore breaking, thus breaking what little roleplaying I can muster. The biggest criticism I have, is that much of the game feels like the Devs made something and said, "Good enough." When writing, creating, or doing anything that takes effort, good enough is not good enough. One needs to push forward, to think things out, to plan, or even take a hard left and go where one did not plan to in order to better avoid clichés and hackery.

Mods such as Tales from the Commonwealth are arguably better written and more varied than the vanilla game itself. There's variety, options for roleplaying and finishing objectives, and bits of decent writing and humor. It's very telling that the work of unpaid hobbyists can outshine the work of paid Devs. Something is very, very wrong with Bethesda, and from what I've seen of some of the Devs in interviews and gameplay videos, I get the sense of cubicle drones that have had the life crushed out of them. It's the kind of low enthusiasm I see in people working crummy, low paying jobs. Fallout 4 isn't a game made by players for players--it's office work with a deadline.
 
DirtyOldShoe said:
So I guess you need to put some mad props out to ID software for teaching Bethesda how to make a first person shooter for Fallout 4. It's funny, what you like about Fallout 4 had nothing to do with Bethesda.
Click to expand...

Except the open world part, that was Bethesda and they actually did a fairly decent job with that. Having more dangerous enemies spawn to the south of the map is also pretty good, much better than only having more powerful enemies spawning when your level is high enough. Would certainly help if a Deathclaw was actually a threatening enemy to fight of course.
 
RevBladeZ said:
Except the open world part, that was Bethesda and they actually did a fairly decent job with that. Having more dangerous enemies spawn to the south of the map is also pretty good, much better than only having more powerful enemies spawning when your level is high enough. Would certainly help if a Deathclaw was actually a threatening enemy to fight of course.
Click to expand...
Dunno, of course I havn't played the game, but I have read from many people who compared their experience with Skyrim and Fallout 4, that Bethesda did a much better job with Skyrim when it comes to the exploration and the open world feeling, in creating a more believable and cohesive world. Fallout 4, from what I can read, feels a lot smaller then Skyrim already did, where you have more verticality, but you will encounter a lot more enemies in 'nonsensical' locations, where you have a raider camp, next to a super mutant base and all of that is right around the corner of some mercenary group which for some reason also attacks you ... If this Bethesdas definition of a great open world game, then I am not impressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top