Now, I'll be the first to admit that I enjoy Fallout 4. I like it as a shooter which allows me to explore a wide map and effectively loot buildings until they are empty, making my own little World within its World.
But, as a Fallout, the game is worse than Brotherhood of Steel. I say this with all seriousness and preferring the former over the later.
So lets compare both games and why BoS is more deserving of the Fallout name.
1. The Dialogue
Possibly the most infamous aspect of the new Fallout is the dialogue wheel. It completely takes away any form of choice and role-playing options the series once had and replaces them with bland, one-note conversations with no depth. The fact the player is now voice acted adds the wrong kind of immersion. We're not playing the role of Millim or anyone else of this forum. We're playing the role of the character we have been given, and all we do is push a button so he has a different tone of response. Sometimes the game will have a minor difference in that you may succeed with that speech check if your charisma is high enough. But this doesn't lead to more interesting dialogue choices, instead it gives us a piece of information or a reveals a bit more about the character we are talking to and pretty much hits a brick wall.
Brotherhood of Steel on the other hand has many dialogue options. While most of these still remain uninteresting, there's at least some way of role-playing, even if it does feel rather basic. The dialogue in BoS is still awful, but there's at least a choice on what I can say. There's at least some kind of option that can effect what the person I'm talking to. It's nothing compared to Fallout 1 or 2, but it's there.
2. Perk System
One of my least favourite changes from New Vegas to 4 is the Perk and Skill System. I used to enjoy working up my skills and receiving a Perk every other level for my troubles. It made the game more rewarding and more satisfying to play. I could work towards making my character a snarky arsewhole, and that's the difference, I had to work for it. Fallout 4 just gives me a tree system and tells me to put a point to any perk I want. yay! It's unrewarding as hell and just lacks any kind of depth the game could have had. BoS has skills and perks at the very least, I can change my stats with each level up making way for at least some interesting styles of gameplay on second play-throughs.
3. Bosses (Or Legendary Enemies)
One of the most frustrating parts of F4 is how there seems to be a mini boss at the end of every dungeon. Mini bosses are fine if spread out and done right, they can add a challenge when you thought there wasn't going to be one. But F4 just uses them way too much. Every other Raider seems to be Legendary whom bullet sponge shotguns to the face. I've blown up synths with missiles only for them to mutate. How the hell do robots mutate? These give them back their health which is just cheap and lazy. Do you remember how threatening the bosses in the old Fallouts where. They stood for something. When you came face to face with the Master, you knew he was a top tier enemy. While you could negate the battle and just talk him into death. But fighting him led to a challenge that changed up how you play the game.
Compare F4's bosses to BoS, who you get every now and then. There's possibly around 5 bosses in the game. While the last one repeats a number of times, at least the game gives them a reason to be harder. These aren't generic villains who have three times as much health and can do twice as much damage. They are Raider leaders and Super Mutants Leaders.
4. Story (and writing)
The story to both suck. But while F4 had potential (it was plagued by horrendous writing), Bos at least understands it's a generic shooter. F4 tried to tug at those heart strings by telling a story about how you had to choose between your son or the good of the Wasteland. The problem is they don't spend nearly as much attention to their relationship meaning you don't care about anything. The game essentially makes you depressed like that. Once you find him, you can help any faction but these don't really add anything to the main game. And it just ends with a generic slide show before throwing you back into the game.
BoS at least said "Yeah, you're going to find a lost paladins" and put you out on some kind of mystery. You help people to get more information and you end up destroying a secret Vault. It's basic, it knows it's basic. It's still half-assed but it's not trying to be anything different. It just says "Oh yeah, just play the game for a few hours and then forget about it".
5. Development Background (and naming)
But what makes F4 somewhat worse was the situation on how they were made.
BoS was developed at a time when Interplay were going through financial difficulties. They had to cancel Van Buren and instead release a game that stripped back what made Fallout good. It is essentially a reskin of a different game, but Interplay knew that and called it a spin-off. It's still a pretty shitty practise, but it knew it wasn't a good Fallout game. It was self aware. They released it onto Consoles, of which the previous were exclusive to PCs and it didn't sell. BoS essentially broke an already breaking company. There was no expectation to be good. It had nothing to fall back upon and it knows that. It's a cash-in that cashed-out.
Fallout 4 however had a popular company making it, and it felt like it was made to reach those expectations. It is just a hybrid of many popular gimmicks of the time, but is a master of none of these things. Instead of time being spent on fixing the game's problems, it would rather cram in as many things as possible to appeal to everyone. And this is fine.
But, the problem is when you call it Fallout 4. This isn't a spin-off showcasing a failed experiment to see what works and what doesn't. This is a sequel to what is largely considered one of the best games of the last decade. And it feels cynical. It feels like they tricked people into buying a product only to learn that the product we was given wasn't what we were told. If Fallout 4 had a different name, if it was a new IP, it would have worked because it's not carrying the baggage of previous titles. But because it is the fourth (or fifth) in a long series of games, Bethesda knew it would see on name alone. They had more resources and more time to work on improving themselves, and instead we get a good FPS with good trade systems and good crafting. But not much else. There's no substance, I went out of F4 not feeling I learnt anything new about the universe at hand. And as the fourth in the series, that's just plain shitty.
And so, these are my reasons why BoS is better than F4. I personally prefer F4 over BoS (that and because I spend half my life now ranting about F4, I really need new hobbies).
But, as a Fallout, the game is worse than Brotherhood of Steel. I say this with all seriousness and preferring the former over the later.
So lets compare both games and why BoS is more deserving of the Fallout name.
1. The Dialogue
Possibly the most infamous aspect of the new Fallout is the dialogue wheel. It completely takes away any form of choice and role-playing options the series once had and replaces them with bland, one-note conversations with no depth. The fact the player is now voice acted adds the wrong kind of immersion. We're not playing the role of Millim or anyone else of this forum. We're playing the role of the character we have been given, and all we do is push a button so he has a different tone of response. Sometimes the game will have a minor difference in that you may succeed with that speech check if your charisma is high enough. But this doesn't lead to more interesting dialogue choices, instead it gives us a piece of information or a reveals a bit more about the character we are talking to and pretty much hits a brick wall.
Brotherhood of Steel on the other hand has many dialogue options. While most of these still remain uninteresting, there's at least some way of role-playing, even if it does feel rather basic. The dialogue in BoS is still awful, but there's at least a choice on what I can say. There's at least some kind of option that can effect what the person I'm talking to. It's nothing compared to Fallout 1 or 2, but it's there.
2. Perk System
One of my least favourite changes from New Vegas to 4 is the Perk and Skill System. I used to enjoy working up my skills and receiving a Perk every other level for my troubles. It made the game more rewarding and more satisfying to play. I could work towards making my character a snarky arsewhole, and that's the difference, I had to work for it. Fallout 4 just gives me a tree system and tells me to put a point to any perk I want. yay! It's unrewarding as hell and just lacks any kind of depth the game could have had. BoS has skills and perks at the very least, I can change my stats with each level up making way for at least some interesting styles of gameplay on second play-throughs.
3. Bosses (Or Legendary Enemies)
One of the most frustrating parts of F4 is how there seems to be a mini boss at the end of every dungeon. Mini bosses are fine if spread out and done right, they can add a challenge when you thought there wasn't going to be one. But F4 just uses them way too much. Every other Raider seems to be Legendary whom bullet sponge shotguns to the face. I've blown up synths with missiles only for them to mutate. How the hell do robots mutate? These give them back their health which is just cheap and lazy. Do you remember how threatening the bosses in the old Fallouts where. They stood for something. When you came face to face with the Master, you knew he was a top tier enemy. While you could negate the battle and just talk him into death. But fighting him led to a challenge that changed up how you play the game.
Compare F4's bosses to BoS, who you get every now and then. There's possibly around 5 bosses in the game. While the last one repeats a number of times, at least the game gives them a reason to be harder. These aren't generic villains who have three times as much health and can do twice as much damage. They are Raider leaders and Super Mutants Leaders.
4. Story (and writing)
The story to both suck. But while F4 had potential (it was plagued by horrendous writing), Bos at least understands it's a generic shooter. F4 tried to tug at those heart strings by telling a story about how you had to choose between your son or the good of the Wasteland. The problem is they don't spend nearly as much attention to their relationship meaning you don't care about anything. The game essentially makes you depressed like that. Once you find him, you can help any faction but these don't really add anything to the main game. And it just ends with a generic slide show before throwing you back into the game.
BoS at least said "Yeah, you're going to find a lost paladins" and put you out on some kind of mystery. You help people to get more information and you end up destroying a secret Vault. It's basic, it knows it's basic. It's still half-assed but it's not trying to be anything different. It just says "Oh yeah, just play the game for a few hours and then forget about it".
5. Development Background (and naming)
But what makes F4 somewhat worse was the situation on how they were made.
BoS was developed at a time when Interplay were going through financial difficulties. They had to cancel Van Buren and instead release a game that stripped back what made Fallout good. It is essentially a reskin of a different game, but Interplay knew that and called it a spin-off. It's still a pretty shitty practise, but it knew it wasn't a good Fallout game. It was self aware. They released it onto Consoles, of which the previous were exclusive to PCs and it didn't sell. BoS essentially broke an already breaking company. There was no expectation to be good. It had nothing to fall back upon and it knows that. It's a cash-in that cashed-out.
Fallout 4 however had a popular company making it, and it felt like it was made to reach those expectations. It is just a hybrid of many popular gimmicks of the time, but is a master of none of these things. Instead of time being spent on fixing the game's problems, it would rather cram in as many things as possible to appeal to everyone. And this is fine.
But, the problem is when you call it Fallout 4. This isn't a spin-off showcasing a failed experiment to see what works and what doesn't. This is a sequel to what is largely considered one of the best games of the last decade. And it feels cynical. It feels like they tricked people into buying a product only to learn that the product we was given wasn't what we were told. If Fallout 4 had a different name, if it was a new IP, it would have worked because it's not carrying the baggage of previous titles. But because it is the fourth (or fifth) in a long series of games, Bethesda knew it would see on name alone. They had more resources and more time to work on improving themselves, and instead we get a good FPS with good trade systems and good crafting. But not much else. There's no substance, I went out of F4 not feeling I learnt anything new about the universe at hand. And as the fourth in the series, that's just plain shitty.
And so, these are my reasons why BoS is better than F4. I personally prefer F4 over BoS (that and because I spend half my life now ranting about F4, I really need new hobbies).
