Anyone else disappointed with Fallout 4?

[WSTommy]

I'm so far over 30 hours in and I literally cannot play anymore of it. This is so far the only Fallout game where I can't be bothered to finish the main quest. The game is just so fricken dull. The quests are boring and uninteresting, the towns and cities are dull as dishwater, the factions are boring and have no likeable NPC's whatsoever, the dialogue wheel is trash and the levelling up system is severely watered down from Fallout 3/New Vegas.

And don't even get me started on the crappy settlement building mini game. The whole thing feels like a crappy Nexus mod rather than a core gameplay mechanic.  

Anyone else feel the same way?    

 

[Zontar]

Does "my laptop can't play it" count as disappointment? Because I learned the hard way that at lowest possible settings I can only play it smoothly when using a quarter of the screen. I got a refund and bought 5 other games with that money.

 

[WSTommy]

Does "my laptop can't play it" count as disappointment? Because I learned the hard way that at lowest possible settings I can only play it smoothly when using a quarter of the screen. I got a refund and bought 5 other games with that money.

The game runs like utter crap on PC from what I've heard. Even people with beastly rigs are having trouble getting it to run smoothly. Then again it's Bethesda so what did people expect?

 

[I can't enter my old name]

Fallout 4 took seven years to make?

The amount of hype I saw for Fallout 4 would inevitably lead to disappointment. I mean people would have to get bored of it eventually and start listing complaints, just like Skyrim.

OP I have a question for you. What is your favorite fallout game, or maybe rpg.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Yah... story is subpar and extremely short, the game itself actually lampshades how unbelievably obvious all the 'plot twists' are, about three likable characters in the whole game, every vault is a disappointment, game balance is completely out of whack, settlement management can go suck my balls...

It wasn't a terrible game. But New Vegas gets to keep it crown as the best of the new Fallouts without contest.

I will say this though - While the game isn't exactly stable, its probably the most stable game Bethesda has released in a while. Went hours between bugs and glitches, unlike Skyrim and FO3, which were as stable as a card castle in a wind tunnel.

 

[WSTommy]

Fallout 4 took seven years to make?

The amount of hype I saw for Fallout 4 would inevitably lead to disappointment. I mean people would have to get bored of it eventually and start listing complaints, just like Skyrim.

OP I have a question for you. What is your favorite fallout game, or maybe rpg.

You're right, the game was never going to live up to the hype. However I still feel game is a massive step back from Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Everything thing from the atmosphere, the dialogue system, the pacing and the quest variety.

As for my favourite RPG of all time... probably a tie between Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and Fallout: New Vegas.

 

[Mangod]

Haven't played it (it's Bethesda, f**k buying any of their games on launch), but I've heard you can't even really roleplay in the game because of how the game and dialog is designed; is that true?

 

[WSTommy]

Yah... story is subpar and extremely short, the game itself actually lampshades how unbelievably obvious all the 'plot twists' are, about three likable characters in the whole game, every vault is a disappointment, game balance is completely out of whack, settlement management can go suck my balls...

It wasn't a terrible game. But New Vegas gets to keep it crown as the best of the new Fallouts without contest.

I will say this though - While the game isn't exactly stable, its probably the most stable game Bethesda has released in a while. Went hours between bugs and glitches, unlike Skyrim and FO3, which were as stable as a card castle in a wind tunnel.

They had seven years. SEVEN YEARS. How on earth did they screw the game up this bad when they had so much time? When you compare the story to something like The Witcher 3 this game is just an embarrassment.

 

[WSTommy]

Haven't played it (it's Bethesda, f**k buying any of their games on launch), but I've heard you can't even really roleplay in the game because of how the game and dialog is designed; is that true?

Yup. Your character is given a backstory involving him being a retired army veteran. Combine that with the crappy Mass Effect style dialogue wheel and the lack of choices in the game's quests and it's near impossible to do any kind of role-playing.

Fuck Bethesda. They butchered an amazing franchise. We can only hope Obsidian can revive the series with the next game.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Yah... story is subpar and extremely short, the game itself actually lampshades how unbelievably obvious all the 'plot twists' are, about three likable characters in the whole game, every vault is a disappointment, game balance is completely out of whack, settlement management can go suck my balls...

It wasn't a terrible game. But New Vegas gets to keep it crown as the best of the new Fallouts without contest.

I will say this though - While the game isn't exactly stable, its probably the most stable game Bethesda has released in a while. Went hours between bugs and glitches, unlike Skyrim and FO3, which were as stable as a card castle in a wind tunnel.

They had seven years. SEVEN YEARS. How on earth did they screw the game up this bad when they had so much time? When you compare the story to something like The Witcher 3 this game is just an embarrassment.

Do you have any sources that say they were working on this game for 7 years? Or are you just going by Fallout 3's release date.

Because I have to tell you - Unless you have information to the contrary, it's unlikely they've been working on in since 2008.

Haven't played it (it's Bethesda, f**k buying any of their games on launch), but I've heard you can't even really roleplay in the game because of how the game and dialog is designed; is that true?

You have three options - Be good, be a sarcastic prick, or go raider.

 

[WSTommy]

Yah... story is subpar and extremely short, the game itself actually lampshades how unbelievably obvious all the 'plot twists' are, about three likable characters in the whole game, every vault is a disappointment, game balance is completely out of whack, settlement management can go suck my balls...

It wasn't a terrible game. But New Vegas gets to keep it crown as the best of the new Fallouts without contest.

I will say this though - While the game isn't exactly stable, its probably the most stable game Bethesda has released in a while. Went hours between bugs and glitches, unlike Skyrim and FO3, which were as stable as a card castle in a wind tunnel.

They had seven years. SEVEN YEARS. How on earth did they screw the game up this bad when they had so much time? When you compare the story to something like The Witcher 3 this game is just an embarrassment.

Do you have any sources that say they were working on this game for 7 years? Or are you just going by Fallout 3's release date.

Because I have to tell you - Unless you have information to the contrary, it's unlikely they've been working on in since 2008.

Haven't played it (it's Bethesda, f**k buying any of their games on launch), but I've heard you can't even really roleplay in the game because of how the game and dialog is designed; is that true?

You have three options - Be good, be a sarcastic prick, or go raider.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/11/06/the-making-of-fallout-4.aspx?PostPageIndex=1

Click the link above. The game had a seven year development cycle.

 

[Mangod]

Yah... story is subpar and extremely short, the game itself actually lampshades how unbelievably obvious all the 'plot twists' are, about three likable characters in the whole game, every vault is a disappointment, game balance is completely out of whack, settlement management can go suck my balls...

It wasn't a terrible game. But New Vegas gets to keep it crown as the best of the new Fallouts without contest.

I will say this though - While the game isn't exactly stable, its probably the most stable game Bethesda has released in a while. Went hours between bugs and glitches, unlike Skyrim and FO3, which were as stable as a card castle in a wind tunnel.

They had seven years. SEVEN YEARS. How on earth did they screw the game up this bad when they had so much time? When you compare the story to something like The Witcher 3 this game is just an embarrassment.

Do you have any sources that say they were working on this game for 7 years? Or are you just going by Fallout 3's release date.

Because I have to tell you - Unless you have information to the contrary, it's unlikely they've been working on in since 2008.

Haven't played it (it's Bethesda, f**k buying any of their games on launch), but I've heard you can't even really roleplay in the game because of how the game and dialog is designed; is that true?

You have three options - Be good, be a sarcastic prick, or go raider.

So you can play as a villain at least? Or does Raider just mean killing everyone with no character interaction?

 

[DefunctTheory]

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/11/06/the-making-of-fallout-4.aspx?PostPageIndex=1

Click the link above. The game had a seven year development cycle.

Yeah... that link says the first asset was made in 2009, by one dude, while the entire rest of the studio was working on Skyrim.

The studio as a whole did not spend 7 years building this game. Probably closer to 4.

You have three options - Be good, be a sarcastic prick, or go raider.

So you can play as a villain at least? Or does Raider just mean killing everyone with no character interaction?

Depends on how you view villainy. 'Raider' is basically 'I did X to watch the world burn for my amusement, not to save anyone.'

You can end up working for the 'villains' of the game, but of the 4 main factions in the game, 3 of them are so gray it hardly seems to matter who you choose, and the 4th is so inconsequential that no one really cares. It's like Warhammer 40K - Its not so much about who's the good guy, but choosing who's less of a dick out of a bunch of dicks (Or more of a dick, if villainy is your thing).

And the whole things made worse by the fact you only have to pick which faction to back about 5 minutes before shit hits the fan.

 

[sanquin]

I personally probably prefer Witcher 3 over Fallout 4. At least that's what I feel after 20+ hours into both games. The witcher 3 has so much more character, even if it also has plenty of flaws and clunkiness. And I feel like I can actually roleplay in that game. In fact, the way Bethesda is going right now, I wouldn't mind it if CD Projekt RED took over Bethesda's fame. At the very least, RED still has passion for what they're making. While Bethesda has been stuck with the exact same game in different settings since Oblivion. (Or arguably since Morrowind, though I view Mowworind as a different game from the ones after that.)

 

[Nimcha]

30 hours of gameplay seems pretty solid to me, at least you enjoyed it enough to play it for that long.

I agree with the stupid backstory limiting roleplay options but once you get out there in the game it's relatively easy to ignore and go your own way.

 

[votemarvel]

I got to the first town and encountered a glitch which prevented me from equipping any weapons.

Since then I really can't be bothered going back and restarting. So the game is disappointing in that I paid £40 for it and had my interest killed in a handful of hours.

 

[IceForce]

Not sure where you're getting "7 years" from. The same dev team who worked on Skyrim also worked on this game, and they didn't start working properly on FO4 until they'd wrapped up with Skyrim and its DLCs. So it's only been 3 or 4 years, not 7.

But to keep this on-topic, a breakdown:

Good things-
- Interaction and dialogue with NPCs now feel like actual conversations, rather than robotic lines of exposition like previous Beth games.
- Graphics: While it might not be Crysis-levels of graphics, the graphics are still perfectly competent, and a significant improvement over previous vanilla Bethesda games.
- The main storyline, for what it's worth, is still an improvement on the 'water purifier' storyline of FO3.
- I see the removal of skills to be a good thing and not a bad thing. It was so stupid how you had to pour points into Lockpicking, and then you'd run out of points at 49 Lockpicking and (still) be unable to pick 'average' locks until you leveled up again.

Bad things-
- Simplified dialogue options can go to hell. I hate not being able to see what I'm about to say before I say it.
- Random dialogue charisma checks and dice rolls can go to hell.
- Minor UI bugs, such as weapon/pipboy disappearing, or status messages (sneak attack multipliers / "Piper liked that." / etc.) not showing up sometimes.

All in all, I'm having a blast with this game. For me, the good points far outweigh the bad.

 

[fezzthemonk]

Everytime I play the game, I see it as a great base for mods. Otherwise my only big complaint is the lack of radio stations (or seemingly new songs)

 

[Pete Oddly]

86 hours in and no major complaints, and I haven't even been to Diamond City yet.

Love this game.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Mostly because the game leaves a little too much for you to figure out. How to get even remotely close to enough resources, how to grow the settlements, etc.
Kinda irritated at the supply line limitations.

there's faults to be sure, but I'm still enjoying things.