Fallout 4 Review - Post-Apocalyptic Warlord Simulator 2287

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
I bought this game as a physical copy, because the area I am in has extremely restrictive Internet access. Imagine my horror to find out I had to download approx. 19gb. For a physical copy of the game. I can't believe they Konami'd us like this. What happened to you Bethesda? You used to be cool.
 

urishima

New member
Nov 9, 2015
8
0
0
Lazule said:
Still the best Fallout story wise is New Vegas, seriously but the full version of that one, play on Hardcore mode and mod it a little you won't be disappointed.
Yep, still getting some serious mileage out of that one.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
urishima said:
Yep, still getting some serious mileage out of that one.
Install the Tale of Two Wastelands mod (it'll require a little tweaking). It allows you to play Fallout 3, it's DLC, and then continue in to New Vegas with the same character. The bonus being, Fallout 3 is a lot more stable running in New Vegas. I was level 47 by the time I went in to NV proper.
 

King_Julian

New member
Jun 10, 2009
160
0
0
ShakerSilver said:
I'm hearing that both console versions are suffering from pretty bad framerate issues. Even the PC version isn't doing to well.

Leave it to Bethesda to make a poorly optimized game. For PC users, unless you have a monster rig and/or a dying need to play the game, I suggest you wait a year or two until the mods have been released so the game is playable (provided they aren't locked behind a paywall).


Im running a 4790k with a gtx 970 and ive not once seen my frames drop below 59.........maybe im lucky i guess......


anyway i think the game is a lot of fun.....no doubt it wont hold my attention for to long though because im a multiplayer kinda guy but if we could have a game almost exactly like this but with a multiplayer aspect it be hooked for life yo.
 

urishima

New member
Nov 9, 2015
8
0
0
008Zulu said:
urishima said:
Yep, still getting some serious mileage out of that one.
Install the Tale of Two Wastelands mod (it'll require a little tweaking). It allows you to play Fallout 3, it's DLC, and then continue in to New Vegas with the same character. The bonus being, Fallout 3 is a lot more stable running in New Vegas. I was level 47 by the time I went in to NV proper.
I am not really interested in any sort of continuity between Fallout 3 and NV.
 

ShakerSilver

Professional Procrastinator
Nov 13, 2009
885
0
0
Amir Kondori said:
Here's the source for the footage I saw. It was previously used in a [a href=http://kotaku.com/player-walks-through-fallout-4-in-an-attempt-to-measur-1740596453]Kotaku article[/a] but the video has since then been taken down before resurfacing here. Skip to 6:30.
Compared to a run-across that one person that did for Skyrim which took around 15 minutes.


Another one of someone running across Fallout 3's map, taking 22 minutes. This game doesn't have a proper sprint function, so I expect the time would be around 3/4 to 2/3 the total time had there been sprinting - so somewhere between 14 to 16 minutes.

Now even with the above videos I wasn't totally sure about the exact sizes due to some other data. [a href=http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1264541-skyrimoblivionmorrowind-heightmap-comparison/]Modders have calculated and compared the size of all the TES and Fallout since Morrowind.[/a] The size of Fallout 3's map is roughly 50 sq miles while Skyrim's is 14.5 sq miles - Fallout 4 being almost 4 times as big as Skyrim. If the movement speeds are the same, it would take a person almost twice the time it takes to diagonally run across the Fallout 3 map than it takes to cross Skyrim in the same manner - the time difference of 15 minutes to 22 minutes somewhat reflects this.

Since Fallout 4 seems to be built like Skyrim and has sprinting as well, I would assume the speeds are roughly the same between the games. This would make Fallout 4 quite a bit smaller than Skyrim, which itself is smaller than Fallout 3.
 

sataricon

New member
Oct 7, 2014
84
0
0
Right....game gets 9/10 from critics and 4/10 from players.

But let me tell you in a few words as possible how this game is a massive step backwards in terms of any thing actually.

-Railroaded progression through the world and map early on.

2-SPECIAL Stats are kneecapped in terms of effectiveness

3-Unkillable NPCs

4-Too much shooting, too little quality dialogue or roleplaying. AKA, Borderlands Syndrome.

5-Quests are at least 75% kill quests.

6-No Ron Perlman for the intro/outro videos.

7-Endings have been hacked down to nubs, and showcase no acknowledgement of things you've done outside of one major choice.

8-Skills are gone, which were a staple of the CRPG genre, especially Fallout.

9-Karma is also gone.

10-Dialogue is wretched, and leaves no room for nuance. Speech challenges no longer branch out from Speech alone into Skills.

11-At least 10 Perks are unlocks of things unrelated to your avatar, while the rest are blase percentage increases, sometimes with overlap in some places.

12-Getting Power Armor, something that took time and effort to get in past games, within five minutes of leaving the Vault, and a Minigun.

13-Having Sprint, Grenade and Bash mapped to one button.

14- Glitches out the ass, including installation glitches and PC crash/freeze bugs.

15- Sub-bar and in some cases very ugly textures that it's amazing how can someone say with a straight face that this game looks even ok.
 

Kajin

This Title Will Be Gone Soon
Apr 13, 2008
1,016
0
0
Charcharo said:
Kajin said:
Do4600 said:
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.
Yet one has and will echo throughout the ages. The other... well not nearly on the same level.
Yeah, it's pretty tough to beat the raw, visceral emotion of watching Simba trying to wake up his dead father. Right in the feels...
 

Kajin

This Title Will Be Gone Soon
Apr 13, 2008
1,016
0
0
Charcharo said:
Meh. Mediocre really, especially when compare to the great works of theater/literature.

The again all of cinema is... not that good against such epics. I can guarentee you, that 100 years from now Shakespeers' work will still be talked about. Lion King... not as much. Or even not at all. We shall see, but it will certainly be lesser.
Then the future is darker for it. Shakespeare's plays were, are, and shall continue to be, highly overrated. Anyone that says otherwise might be welcome to that opinion but it doesn't stop them from being entirely deluded.

On Topic:
Out of all the little niggling annoyances in the game, the only one that really, truly pisses me off is that Dogmeat isn't treated as a permanent companion. Wtf, Bethesda?! He was in EVERY FUCKING TRAILER! New Vegas let as have two companions, a human and a non human. Why do I have to get rid of Dogmeat if I want any other companion accompanying me?! They played him up so hard I figured he'd always be there by your side.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
lord canti said:
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.
Hahaha, but in that case they DO resemble the old ones in mechanics and gameplay. Even The Elder Scrolls:Arena closely resembles Skyrim. You guys are trying to make the case that Baldur's Gate is Neverwinter because they share locations, enemies and items. It's just not the case, they're totally different but for the fact that they both have beholders and exist in the forgotten realms.
 

lord canti

New member
May 30, 2009
619
0
0
Do4600 said:
lord canti said:
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.
Hahaha, but in that case they DO resemble the old ones in mechanics and gameplay. Even The Elder Scrolls:Arena closely resembles Skyrim. You guys are trying to make the case that Baldur's Gate is Neverwinter because they share locations, enemies and items. It's just not the case, they're totally different but for the fact that they both have beholders and exist in the forgotten realms.
Not really though, sure you still collect items and explore, but the emphasis on exploring has gone down quite a bit in recent zelda games with the exception of link between worlds. The first Zelda game you could tackle any dungeon in any order you wanted to and collect the items as you please with no rules applied. The newer ones however have a much bigger focus on combat and item use than they do actually adventuring. You had to tackle the dungeons in the order the game told you to. I'll give you that the change between the original fallouts and 3 and vastly different,but my point of the zelda franchise being different than the original games stands as well.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
Objectable said:
Why do we even have reviews if the people in the comments have already made up their minds?
Because the people in the comments aren't the only ones who read reviews. It's for the benefit of the silent majority.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
Do4600 said:
Kajin said:
snip...

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.
Oh, the irony in that last sentence... delightful!
 

Adultratedhydra

New member
Aug 19, 2010
177
0
0
You know as someone who started on Fallout 1 back when most people posting were a twinkle in the Milkmans eye I think the new Fallout games are fine. Whats wrong with a series evolving? If a series doesnt evolve then it gets stagnant I mean come on. Since the first fallout game it's arguably been 150+ years in game, Time has advanced, motivations change and this is purely from a Storyline perspective.

This whole "No True fallout fan loves the modern takes" is bullshit because there is no true fallout fan. Fallout 4 is fine. Is it a mindblowing masterpiece? Ofcourse it fucking isnt, why must every game be a mindblowing masterpiece? If every game were a masterpiece the industry would be boring as shit.

Some people here need to take their pretentious hat off and the rose colored goggles. "Oh but the map is so empty compared to previous fallout games" ***** do you not remember 90% of Fallout 1 and 2 was staring at a giant grid? The only reason the modern takes map seems empty is because the grid is visual rather than an actual grid.

Now stop being pretentious wankers and actually enjoy something for once in your life.
 

WolfThomas

Man must have a code.
Dec 21, 2007
5,294
0
0
Conrad Zimmerman said:
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.
There is so much truth in this one comment. They love complaining. Main reason I stopped reading.