Fallout 4 Review - Post-Apocalyptic Warlord Simulator 2287

[kenu12345]

So, my biggest fears have been proven true: I am given some random assfaces for a spouse and a kid, for whom I am supposed to care just because Bethesda says so. Aaand, if leaks are correct, in the end I'll have to make a decision that makes F3 look like a masterpiece.

RPG aspects were neutered: no matter how strong I am, I am still not intimidating if I don't have a certain perk from Charisma tree. No matter how dumb I am, I will speak the same way. Some stats have become no more than seals, blocking access to perks. You only need Strength to carry things and Endurance to be hit and not die. And a goddamn average Joe and Jane voices.

You know what? Just make F5 already, but make it a post-apocalyptic FPS, so that the nail in the coffin could be finally hit.

I am not playing this. I won't buy it even for 2 bucks, because the time I can spend on this game I can also spend on far better games.

Yeah, same here. I was hoping that the rumors would prove false but nope. I would say I hope Obsidian makes another one, but I highly doubt that they will sadly enough

 

[zombiejoe]

Man, I'm just not sure what I should do with this one. On one hand, the world and narrative seem interesting, the crafting and settlement building are cool, and better combat is always nice. But at the same time, with limited dialogue options, less RPG elements, and less ways to resolve situations, it does look like the game isn't going in a good direction. I have heard that the game skips basic black and white morality in favor of four main factions, like New Vegas, but without more ways to interact with them, I'm just concerned.

I may still end up picking it up just for the Fallout fix, but I'm going to wait a bit to hear more opinions. Worst case scenario, I'll just need to wait for Obsidian to make the next game.

 

[Rornicus]

I may still end up picking it up just for the Fallout fix, but I'm going to wait a bit to hear more opinions. Worst case scenario, I'll just need to wait for Obsidian to make the next game.

This, except sadly I'm not holding out a lot of hope that Beth with let Obsidian make another FO game. I thought I heard they specifically weren't going to let them do another. I may be (and hope I am) wrong though.

 

[zombiejoe]

I may still end up picking it up just for the Fallout fix, but I'm going to wait a bit to hear more opinions. Worst case scenario, I'll just need to wait for Obsidian to make the next game.

This, except sadly I'm not holding out a lot of hope that Beth with let Obsidian make another FO game. I thought I heard they specifically weren't going to let them do another. I may be (and hope I am) wrong though.

I've heard some mixed messages about Bethesda and Obsidian's current relationship. On one hand, there was some bad blood from that 84 Metacritc score and Bethesda trying to rush the guys to finish the game. On the other hand, Obsidian says they'd really like to do another Fallout game. On the third, mutant hand, Bethesda hardly even mentions New Vegas, so I have no idea what they're thinking.

 

[Do4600]

Snip

I just...what does that even mean?

The Lion King was based on Hamlet, but it has obvious differences and simplifications to appeal to a wider and younger audience.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I just...what does that even mean?

The Lion King was based on Hamlet, but it has obvious differences and simplifications to appeal to a wider and younger audience.

Yeah, that comparison doesn't really work considering that there's a difference between based on and being part of the same franchise.

 

[Comic Sans]

Holy cow, some of the posts in this thread. Calm down. This is The Escapist, not No Mutants Allowed. No need to attack people for starting with Fallout 3. The old games are just that, old. They are from an entirely different era of gaming. They have not aged well and are hard to get into. Calm down, let's be civil here.

As for Fallout 4, I'll just post my thoughts from the General Discussion thread.

I would like to try it sometime, but won't buy it myself. I'll ask for it for my birthday this month or Christmas. I am sure it's a solid, even great game, but I really don't like how they messed with the role playing aspects. Less conversation options, removing skills, neutering the importance of SPECIAL, all things that irk me. One of my favorite things in New Vegas was how many different ways there were to complete quests, even in just the dialogue. Having high skills could make for entirely different experiences. Going through Old World Blues with high Science was an absolute hoot. By removing those elements from the game, you remove what made it interesting and unique for me. The game is clearly a successor to Fallout 3, not New Vegas. And while Fallout 3 was a good game at the time that I put time into, when I look back there's nothing that really stood out. I just kind of shrug my shoulders and go "eh, it was fun I guess". Given that and how I generally don't really get grabbed by Bethesda RPGs due to similar issues, I am holding off until it's cheaper or it's a gift.

 

[Do4600]

It's like saying you like Shakespeare because you like Lion King.

And yet Lion King is the overall better experience. I've read Shakespeare. While I overall enjoyed his work I think he was little more than a bawdy playwright. It utterly baffles me that people think he's the best thing since before sliced bread was even a thing.

As erttheking has already stated, if liking the newer games more than the older ones means you have to revoke your Fan Card, then it wasn't worth much to have one to begin with. Being a fan doesn't automatically entitle you to be a condescending jerkwad to everyone who likes the parts of the series you don't like. If that's what it takes to be a "true fan" then you can keep that status. It isn't worthy of anything but shame.

Perhaps the Lion King is more palatable, but in my opinion it doesn't challenge the audience as much, it doesn't ask as many existential questions, and some would say that those questions are the purpose of art in the first place. Which one is better is a matter of philosophy and preference but being a fan of The Lion King still doesn't make you a fan of Shakespeare. Being a fan of Bethesda's Fallout doesn't make you a fan of Interplay's Fallout.

I think the problem is that they share a name but Bethesda's Fallout is essentially a totally different game, no maybe not a totally different game, just an outrageous spin-off, Fallout 3 is like Trapper John M.D. to Fallout's M*A*S*H*. Now imagine that Trapper John M.D. is even more popular than M*A*S*H* and that it's also named M*A*S*H* this is exactly the situation we're in right now.

Fallout 3 uses 95% of the art design, 40% of the story and 20% of the mechanics of Fallout. They're not similar games which explains why people who are fans of the new games usually hate the old games and why people like me who played the old games look at the new games and say they might as well be a new IP altogether. It's Fallout in name only, sure there are things called deathclaws, there are stimpacks, there are super mutants, but it still won't change the fact that nearly every aspect of how you navigate and interact with those art assets is totally different. Like Lion King it's a simplified experience to appeal to a wider audience.

It's a totally subjective question of which you prefer. One is a true sprite based RPG with deep mechanics and choices you can't even scratch in a single playthrough. One is a massive first person shooter with basic rpg elements which provides a visceral experience that is linear at the top and bottom and wide in the middle. I don't see the new games as Fallout games, and you see that as a slur because you LOVE Fallout, but for 11 years before Fallout 3 Fallout 1-Tactics WAS fallout, and that's my perspective. That's my Fallout, not your fallout. So when you look at old Fallout you say, "That's not Fallout, Fallout 3 is Fallout" If they had just named it OBLIVIOUT, or Daughter Particles or Black Rain or Thyroid Melter we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Also just like sports fans, if you only like the team when it's winning you aren't a true fan.

 

[Do4600]

Snip

I just...what does that even mean?

The Lion King was based on Hamlet, but it has obvious differences and simplifications to appeal to a wider and younger audience.

Yeah, that comparison doesn't really work considering that there's a difference between based on and being part of the same franchise.

Yeah, I'd argue that Fallout 3 was based on Fallout.

 

[Redvenge]

Why do we even have reviews if the people in the comments have already made up their minds?

I find this hilarious as well. Game doesn't release till at least 9 PM EST tonight but people are already judging it.
It'll probably have bugs, perhaps some issues- but are we really going to call it an OK game before actually playing it?

...

We alone, are the ones to see if Fallout 4 lives up to it's name. Oh and also, our reviewer gave it 4 1/2 stars out of 5 ... so it's obviously not going to suck. Please wait to play the game for yourselves people >_> before judging the game before release lol.

Absolutely not!

This game has been a travesty since we learned just how lame and uncreative it is! How Bethesda just wants to cater to those thuggish Brotherhood of Steel fanboys! Retreading story content that was presented in Wasteland, the very game Fallout takes it's inspiration from!

I am referring, of course, to Bethesda's bigoted refusal to bring back talking albino deathclaws!

I'm certain that Conrad Zimmerman would be the first to confirm that all the companions in FO4 pale in comparison to Goris, the most awesome companion in the entire history of the series! I know that everyone is tired of seeing a lumbering power-armored figure on the cover. We want to see talking albino deathclaws! Dual-wielding miniguns! Sweat glistening on their scaley, well-muscled chests...

Erm... so yeah! Stop sucking, Bethesda! Give us what we want! Talking albino deathclaws!

 

[Kajin]

Also just like sports fans, if you only like the team when it's winning you aren't a true fan.

That's sports. This is games. If a game wasn't winning before then obviously it did something wrong to keep it from winning. Maybe it just wasn't as good a game as you thought it was?

It's okay to not like certain games in a franchise, but calling the new Fallout games "not Fallout" because they've departed somewhat from the old games is an incredibly ignorant statement to make. It's still Fallout. It's just changed from what you knew, and that's a good thing. No game series can remain the same forever. It has to grow and expand. Try new things. True, you might not like the new things in the new games, but that doesn't discount the new games from being just as much Fallout as the older games.

And I've already told you my opinion on Shakespeare. Not an ounce of respect for his ability as a writer.

 

[Drathnoxis]

It's like saying you like Shakespeare because you like Lion King.

And yet Lion King is the overall better experience. I've read Shakespeare. While I overall enjoyed his work I think he was little more than a bawdy playwright. It utterly baffles me that people think he's the best thing since before sliced bread was even a thing.

But you can't read Shakespeare and get the full experience. He wrote plays, not novels, and plays are meant to be acted. That's like only reading the screenplay for the Lion King and saying it's not very good.

 

[lord canti]

Fanboys fanboys never change. The comments on this page are like saying that the newer legend of zelda game aren't real zelda games because they don't mostly resemble the original ones.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

If you hated the direction Fallout 3 went, then I wouldn't even bother. Just go No Mutants Allowed and grumble with the other people who have been left behind.

That was rude. We liked New Vegas, why can't we have more of that?

I sometimes wonder on which side those of us that don't think that F3 was shitty, but still prefer NV approach, were supposed to be in that conflict.

OT: What about the voice acting on NPCs behalf? Do you still hear about 3 same guys throughout the game?

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I'd just like to say that I liked New Vegas for it's writing (DLC as well was top-notch), and Fallout 3 for it's atmosphere...for the first few hours before you reached Rivet City.

I get the feeling I'd enjoy this for a few hours but find the rest pretty insubstantial, especially in a year that has been full of sandboxes.

Question though: Based on rumours that a lot of the minor quests are just "go here, kill this/find this/deliver this", how repetitive do they get, and are comparisons to Far Cry fair based on the heavier emphasis on FPS combat now?

Also, have they made melee combat any more fun? I always felt that outside of stealth, melee combat was pretty boring in NV/3. I suppose I can also extend it to other alternative approaches like stealth and whatnot? How do they feel this time around?

 

[mysecondlife]

Hi Conrad. I hope you can get to this comment. As someone who never played a Fallout game, would you say Fallout 4 is a good entry point if I could only play one in the series?

Look, I know I am not Conrad, but if you'll allow me, I'd say start with New Vegas. Parts 1 & 2, according to some people, did not age well, while F3 and (it seems so) F4 really lack in actual role-playing aspect.

NV, however, in my humble opinion, strikes a rather nice balance betwen being a good RPG and having relatively acceptable gameplay.

Your input is just as welcome. Thanks.

 

[RebornKusabi]

Hi Conrad. I hope you can get to this comment. As someone who never played a Fallout game, would you say Fallout 4 is a good entry point if I could only play one in the series?

Look, I know I am not Conrad, but if you'll allow me, I'd say start with New Vegas. Parts 1 & 2, according to some people, did not age well, while F3 and (it seems so) F4 really lack in actual role-playing aspect.

NV, however, in my humble opinion, strikes a rather nice balance betwen being a good RPG and having relatively acceptable gameplay.

Your input is just as welcome. Thanks.

Yeah I haven't played 4 yet, but I'm in agreement- New Vegas has aged beautifully.

I've played all of the Fallout's. Including Tactics and BoS. They all have their strengths and weaknesses but I honestly don't have any negatives for New Vegas. 1 is super short and easily broken(both balance and gameplay wise), 2 is brutal in the opening hours (disregarding the hell run to get power armor early) and then becomes an interesting grander section of Fallout canon, 3 has aged poorly unmodded (although modded, it's a strong game still) and it runs like utter f***s**t on PS3 and Windows 10. New Vegas has the best of everything. It has performance issue too but they're easily negated and with mods, New Vegas becomes an amazing bridge to 4 in a way, and 4 does sort of feel tonally like a step backwards. Again, haven't played it.

 

[JET1971]

I love seeing fans of FO1 and 2 claim FO3 isn't good because it was made by Bethesda and that FNV is far superior in every way. The whole faction thing everyone claims is great? Only 2 of the factions really matter, all the rest are just there. Doing faction quests can break quests for another faction because Obsidian reused way too many locations and NPC's *Cough Motor Runner Cough*. It really could've been great but the whole faction system was lackluster and not well planned and even poorly done when BOS is there but doesn't make any difference in the game and felt like they were included to make fans happy. Great Khans? Boomers? waste of time doing anything for them because they don't really affect the main story in any meaningful way. Powder gangers? More nuisance than anything and have no place at all in the main story ontop of whatever Obsidian was doing with them they obviously only did half of it leaving them as a footnote in the Mojave.

Then you have the Mojave itself, the whole bottom of the map is a waste of time to explore because there's nothing down there. The road to the Boomers all the way to the other side of the map is the same as the bottom, don't bother with that area because there's no point. The empty space between settlements? A few ants or radscorpions to keep you interested otherwise it's boring.

I love FNV but it's not any better than FO3, it has it's own unique problems and a story that really isn't any better if you are not a fanboy of FO1/2 and hate Bethesda for buying the IP and see it objectively for what it is.

 

[Kyogissun]

I love FNV but it's not any better than FO3, it has it's own unique problems and a story that really isn't any better if you are not a fanboy of FO1/2 and hate Bethesda for buying the IP and see it objectively for what it is.

Having been exposed to Fallout 1 and 2, I've been aware of the drastic changes between 3 and NV and I understand the frustrations the hardcore fans have with it but... I'm entirely in agreement with this. A better direction would be smashing the best parts of 3 and NV together, building upon what they did right and adding even more roleplaying options and depth. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case with 4.

However, every review or opinion about that game from some who HAS played it that isn't composed of still angry fans of 1, 2 and Tactics (I'M NOT HATING ON YOU, I'm purely stating a factor of character to the individuals I'm speaking about) or some chucklefuck who hasn't actually got their hands on it and is making a judgement from afar (Which I'm also respecting as a completely legitimate decision, I'm just not respecting their hostility to more passive/laidback fans like myself who want to play the game -and- criticize/analyze its issues at the same time) seems to indicate the same thing: The fun factor is there and if you enjoyed 3 and NV, you'll enjoy this too but probably have problems with the streamlining changes.

My friend voted with his wallet for me, him and another friend, so it's something we can't back out on now. However, I can say that this is going to make me significantly cautious when it comes to the next release. I was placing some faith in Bethesda after FONV and hoping they would take what people praised and put it into FO4, but clearly that is not the case and I will be voicing my discontent. Still, it's good to hear that the game does still have a solid fun factor... Unfortunate that it appears to be at the cost of more streamlining but then again, replacements have come out for the series at this point haven't they? We got Wasteland 2 after all, I don't see why Wasteland 3 isn't a possibility now.

 

[mysecondlife]

Hi Conrad. I hope you can get to this comment. As someone who never played a Fallout game, would you say Fallout 4 is a good entry point if I could only play one in the series?

Look, I know I am not Conrad, but if you'll allow me, I'd say start with New Vegas. Parts 1 & 2, according to some people, did not age well, while F3 and (it seems so) F4 really lack in actual role-playing aspect.

NV, however, in my humble opinion, strikes a rather nice balance betwen being a good RPG and having relatively acceptable gameplay.

Your input is just as welcome. Thanks.

Yeah I haven't played 4 yet, but I'm in agreement- New Vegas has aged beautifully.

I've played all of the Fallout's. Including Tactics and BoS. They all have their strengths and weaknesses but I honestly don't have any negatives for New Vegas. 1 is super short and easily broken(both balance and gameplay wise), 2 is brutal in the opening hours (disregarding the hell run to get power armor early) and then becomes an interesting grander section of Fallout canon, 3 has aged poorly unmodded (although modded, it's a strong game still) and it runs like utter f***s**t on PS3 and Windows 10. New Vegas has the best of everything. It has performance issue too but they're easily negated and with mods, New Vegas becomes an amazing bridge to 4 in a way, and 4 does sort of feel tonally like a step backwards. Again, haven't played it.

I'll make sure to get New Vegas if its on sale. Thanks for your input.