And again, that's where we disagree. Fair enough, neither of us is likely to change our minds on a disagreement that fundamental.


Moving right along then.

I keep stabbing my face and it hurts, guys, what do I do

Pack the wound in salt and take a bath in tato juice...

Well, you're not going to be one of the cool kids with that attitude!

You guys who are down on Fallout 4, really should install FO1 with the High res and "Fixt" pack and give it a whirl. Even if you have played it before, I am betting that for most of you it has been a while.

The graphics are of course, almost crayola scribble quality. The voiced NPCs are like cartoon characters. The story "We need a chip, Go get it." The NPCs, just as many nonsensical dialogue statements as you'll find in any "RPG" game.

A great game, and a classic, but hardly the best Fallout game ever.

What I constantly see and perceive it as wrong in my books is that whole 5 gazillion hours and 300 different characters mentality. Role playing is about playing a role given to you by the dev for maybe 2 or 3 hundred hours and be done with it, investing in crafting your legend. First of all congrats on people remembering details from FO3 or FONV, I mainly remember that I liked them. FO4 is brilliant, especially story wise.

You get a more relateable character who has more similar to you experiences (pre great war) and gets to meet this whole new world. You weren't raisen in a Vault, nor in the Wasteland, it is easier to relate to a character that hasn't as well.

You get a lot of choice come endgame, who to side with, who to betray, how to rebuild the future.

You get some really memorable sidequests, like in FO3 and FONV, plus most of your companions offer deep and relatable sidestories.

Yes, it has two great flaws: For one, the charisma mechanic (and not just aaall the dialogues) is underdeveloped and unexploited. The second one is Vaults. They aren't as eyecatching as in previous FO's, their backstories are quite shallow and predictable.

Other than that, with nearly 200 hours and a lvl103 SS rebuilding the CW with his minutemen and the help of RR and BoS, I can't thing of a better way to have had my 60 euros spent. I still can't put it down, and there is some beef to it left (for one, a perfectionist could go for all the perks) and can't wait for the DLC!

Every time I play Fallout 1 or 2 I have lots of fun, but I can't help thinking "This is what Bethesda ruined?".

To be fair to Bethesda. It was Herve Caen that ruined things for Fallout. He cancelled Van Buren aka Fallout 3 in favor of games like Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. Under him Interplay Sold the rights to Fallout.

All Bethesda did was choose to ignore at lot of what made the original Fallout's great. But they did end up hiring Obsidian to make New Vegas so that's something.

Heh are you serius any military in the world wud use it, how long do you think tanks/planes and helicopters can run without refulling and the PA refuel only requiers a solder to wear a couple of spare cores(same as you wud have multiple magazines of ammo). Now if you wud say it goes against original lore of the PA that wud make sence but using the real life military anology is simply rediculus, around 36 hours of combat operation is plenty for a peace of equipment to be more than worthwhile using on the battlefield.

Jup indeed Bethesda games have nevery rly been story focused but that doesnt make em any less of an RPG, And weather its the defining feature i guess it depends on your personal taste but if you consider it to be defining part than no previus Bethesda game was an RPG by those standards since Bethesda always centered their games around exploration, freedom of choice and basicly telling the backstory trough the world itself(hidden lore fragments, hints here and there etc...), and never around the story itself.

In my opinion its pretty much impossibile to have both, virtualy complete freedom on when/how and if at all to participate in the story packed in an open sandbox style world while still keeping some sence of urgency/importance of the actual main story etc... Thats simply the way Bethesda handles their RPGs.

I don't think there's any point in dwelling on what happened, or who's at fault, or what "could have been". I don't even think it's right to say Bethesda "saved the franchise" - Fallout 1 & 2 are great games by their own merit, and they'll stay great regardless of what Bethesda does or if they never got the IP at all. Bethesda's pretty aware their Fallout is a radical departure from what Interplay did, though, and that's probably part of the reason why Obsidian got a chance to do their thing in New Vegas. But I think it's for the better Bethesda just sticks to their guns and does what they want - there's nothing they can do to please the old crowd, short of just giving the IP to Obsidian or someone else. And that's... not going to happen.

I like the level of detail that Bethesda puts in their games, and Fallout 4 is no exception. I have more than 160 hours of play, and I enjoy exploring, reading terminals or finding even more details, like teddy bears driving a truck

However, the problem with Fallout 4 is that even with settlements, you don't get to change the Commonwealth much, even if the later game when you have powerful allies, a lot of resources, and so on.

The writing feels rushed, like many parts of the game. Why do we have such small caps on settlements?

The premise of the game is weak - you wake up from cryo-sleep, and 30 minutes later you blast a deathclaw with a machine gun.

There is little sense of progression. You get to join the BoS almost right way, you waltz on the Prydwen and are made a knight, and so on.

I would have imagine a start like in Skyrim, you are rescued from the vault by a NPC which enters a fight between factions, moment when you choose sides, and after that you end up in a camp (BoS outpost, raider hideout, RR safehouse) where you develop your char.

But the reality is that the audience of this game has changed. Less and less people who played the first two games play Fallout 4 now, and this is true for other sequels. It is somehow natural that the new instalments to be adapted to the present audience. Nostalgics will cry, but this is life. That's why we (nostalgics) still have dosbox

Over 300 hours into the game and still loving it. Each BGS games pulls me in a little more. Witcher was good for about 200 hours then I kind of burned out. I just don't burn out on BGS games though.

There is a lot Bethesda could do to make "the old crowd" happy. They did some of it for Fallout 4 but not nearly enough. But it isn't just the older Fallout fans that are let down by Fallout 4.

If Bethesda had made New Vegas and not Obsidian, I am sure the game would have gone down in history as a master piece and Bethesda fans would talk about it more than Fallout 3.

The truth is Bethesda are great at creating a world but it is empty of content. Exploring is their thing but walking around and looking for things doesn't make a good RPG. Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 are good games but not so much good RPG games.

I see no reason why a Bethesda can't have awesome worlds they create with Obsidian level of RPG quality.

Yep so I can avoid it like the plague. Their versions of Fallout and Knights of the old republic are literally the two most disappointing games I've ever played.

Every game has its age. Go play other game to refresh, then come back later.

The more I play FO1 the more I love FO4

I had concerns originally about replay value. Well, I still haven't finished a single playthrough but I got realy tired of the settlement thing. The result was that I'm playing a character who doesn't do the Minuteman thing at all, and it gives a fresh feeling to the whole game. While I do not believe FO4 has the replay value of Skyrim, or even perhaps FONV, I think by playing different types of characters it will retain a lot of entertainment value... and once full-blown mods are created, I see it becoming far more than it is. What that means is, to me, it's only going to get better.