It's worse than NV imo to. NV wasn't made by Bethesda so I'm not shocked they didn't build on what NV had( but I little disappointed). That it's better than Fallout 3

NV was no super game. I liked it, I like F3 and I like F4 as well.

The roleplaying has been made different for sure, but you can play roles that were impossible before. It's not dumbed down, it's different. Now my favorite game is Stalker and although F4 is nothing like it it's kinda moving the world in the same direction. I like that.

As well I've played all the 3D Fallout games, many thousands of hours, without using VATS. It's a cheat for me, and the improved shooter mechanism is just great. Now combat is fun and not a chore. A huge difference.

Mainly to illustrate, that there are graver issue's than "someone said some meanish things about a thing I like". TB's criticisms hold some weight, there are issues with the game. The thing is I LOVE the FO franchise! I do not want to see fail, thus I am appalled to see fanboish fawning over valid criticism, of parts of the franchise. Critique is not a problem, the problem comes from raising something to a position, where it is beyond such.

New Vegas showed it was possible to have in depth dialogue and lots of options to finish quests, multiple path for the game and still be successful today. Basically Fallout New Vegas is the closest to a modern old school RPG. It got 13th place recently of RPG games. Obsidian got many on a list of top 30 RPGs. http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-rpgs-of-all-time-1/

But Bethesda has gotten away with murder so many times, so it wasn't that big of a shock that they would try to do it one more time. They even went as far as to replace actual quests with computer generated to kill, save and fetch quests.

Ahhh so you're more annoyed you can't use Charisma as a dump stat and just bolster the Speech skill

Soldier...


In my experience there are a vast number of interactions in conversations that can have a differing outcome, the trouble is they are not signposted and without a direct comparison to what might have happened you may miss it.

There are many aspects to Roleplaying, there is division in the types of players you'll find at the gaming table. Choosing from a variety of tactics to a fixed situation is as much a part of roleplaying as character acting.

This is what makes so many of the arguments about Fallout 4 so amusing and shows just how much the people arguing can't see where the others are coming from. Some of us are happy that they made a Fallout that is actually fun to play while the rest are mad that they didn't get another Fallout that is fun(?) to watch.

Imo, the biggest issue is the voiced protagonist. Ruins immersion, reduced the number of quests, reduced the number of dialogue options, eliminates evil alternatives, etc.

Shallow RPG?


Fallout 3's story railroaded into a linear path and God forbid if you tried to deviate away from it. In fact, Broken Steel was just shooty-shooty-bang-bang and you were never given a reason aside from "evilz Enclave!". The characters were cardboard cut-outs, the setting was repetitive and the story was awful. Even Point Lookout and Zeta had many WTF moments for me.


After 48 hours, I never cringed once in Fallout 4. Conversations are more natural and so are the characters. You actually have a choice in your faction which is a massive improvement over Hobson's choice.

What's amusing? I don't see anyone complaining that Fallout isn't an "isometric turn-based tactical shooter", as Howard once called it.

I don't know if they gotten away with murder as you put it. A lot of people play their RPGs just go from random location to random location killing things and looking for loot. A lot of Bethesda fans enjoy just exploring the world(personally I need a reason to explore other then "hey there is building or cave"). They made the game people should have expected them to.

I have been pondering naming this the worst FO game I've ever played, mainly because I just can't get myself to play anymore. Technically, I think it is better than 3, what with the companions and gun play, but the negative aspect of this game have killed my desire to play it. Basically, do I want to load it up, and go kill stuff or explore places..and kill whatever I find in the places I explore? I haven't even finished the MQ and with no sliders I don't have the energy to do that either. Sigh. Maybe it isn't the worst Fallout game, but the biggest letdown.

This is what I don't understand. How are they getting away with murder? Bethesda has never said they are going to make their games "old school" RPG games. They have said many times they make games they like to play.

Would I like a thousand different dialog options? Sure. Do I find Preston the most annoying thing in the game? Definitely - but at no time has Bethesda stated they are going to make their games according to a set of RPG standards. If anything Bethesda seems to be making their games more and more action-adventure-open world-sandbox-rpgs. Which, personally I have a lot of fun with.

There is a big difference between "old school RPG" and "Kill Kill KILL DIE KILL KILL DIE DIE DIE!!!!!!!" with some added Michael Bay Boooom Kerplowwy fire fire explosion Peergherteyr crash pow kerchunk boom boom. Just saying, I think a happy little medium can be found, otherwise, why did they buy a RPG IP when they could just have made their own pow pow kabloom game? Coulda called it Death Riders of The Apocalypse, an actiony-action game.

Holy [censored] this is too true.

Sorry I didn't specify that I was comparing Fallout 3/NV to Fallout 4. Depending on the player Fallout 4 is two different games and it's an endless series of arguments between players than can't really grasp where the other is coming from.

For instance:

Player that loves FPS and likes Fallout: They may love this game because it takes the Fallout setting/lore and makes a decent openworld FPS out of it.

Player that loves Fallout and hate FPS: They use VATS, it looks a little better, but all they see is a simplified Fallout 3.

Also, which group do you think is larger? I'd assume the one Bethesda chose to cater to.

Am? No i'm annoyed i can't use anything else that charisma.

I havent seen this yet, but i predict it only requires giving a stimpack?

From what i have seen with around 100h there aren't many quest that offer different outcome

There are plenty of Fallout fans who don't have a problem with FPS games. I like multiple genre of games, strategy, turn based, real time, FPS, etc etc etc. But when you flop the Fallout name on it, I would like some RPG stuff, and not just action or FPS. I don't care if the game is first person and has good gunplay, that is fine, but how about give me some more RPG aspects eh? This is where the game failed, imo. I do think that the lack of RPG is what hurts this game the most in reviews, which I see all the time, even from people who recommend and say "Good game, bad Fallout game" because they expect some kind of role play to be going on from the Fallout namesake.

Edit: For an example, when FO Tactics came out, it received a lot of criticism from some FO fans because it wasn't "an RPG". The difference, imo, is that it didn't brand itself as an RPG, it branded itself as a "Post Nuclear Tactical Combat Game", and even then, it did have some RPG stuff in it. I think the same is going on here, except even more so because this is a direct sequel and not a spin off.

They are making the game that they believe will appeal to the largest amount of players(All about the $$). Seriously, after Skyrim, who didn't see this coming? There are more people that want to play an action game in a big world than care about allocating Skill points and picking novelty dialogue options that slightly alter the game.

Theres one question I like to ask myself....can you sme .........am I enjoying the game that I'm currently playing? If yes keep enjoying it then!!! and if not try reall hard to get my money's worth . if still nothing then move along. And another thing is fallout 4 an rpg? When this question pops up you get 100 people who says no then you get 100 who say yes and each side tries to explain what an rpg is and brings in a game that they think is an rpg. But then the other side says no that game is not an rpg and then that side start naming games that they think are rpg's and it goes back and forth like that.....WHAT IS RPG?!!!!!!

Well, picking novelty dialogue options that slightly alter the game is what we have now. I don't think it would hurt sales to find a medium between the two. I also can't speculate what people want to play, but the game can fit into both genres of RPG and Action(thus making everyone satisfied).

....um. No, system does have a huge impact on bugginess. Like how the PS3 versions of previous games had more & different bugs because of the radically different hardware & OS than the other platforms. Or how one person on PC might end up with different bugs due to the mix of components/OS/drivers that he has, compared to someone else.

Honestly, I'm not sure where this is coming from. Every thread about bugs I've seen, people talk about how it's less buggy for them than previous Beth games. And it's certainly not buggy enough to draw all those "disaster watch"-style blog articles (like Simcity, Arkham Knight, etc...) So yeah, I'm sorry you're experiencing so many "game breaking" bugs, but from what I've seen that seems to be the more rare position to be in.

(Personally, I've had two CTD's in ~140 hours. And some really minor stuff, like settlements displaying their stats incorrectly in my Pipboy, or the delay when switching weapons sometimes. Nothing that's made me go back to a previous save, and definitely nothing game-breaking.)

A bug doesn't need to be game-breaking to be a bug. Bugs are classified by severity and priority, but a bug is a bug is a bug.

It honestly sounds like you have a problem with change

I referenced the term "game breaking" because the person I was responding to had spoken of "dozens of game breaking bugs". Going back, I see he was talking about people in general, not just him.

The definition of a Roleplaying game goes from the vague 'assume the identity of an imaginary character' to the more rules centered crunchy definition of 'control the actions of a character with their own defined skillset.'.
Even within the tabletop realm there's no clear cut answer, some lean on the fluff and amateur dramatics, others go hardcoe tactician with a focus on detailed crunchy rules, others try to strike a balance.
It gets even more confusing in the computer industry where many games that would pass as a roleplaying game at the table are placed in different categories.

So are you going to start a thread with a link to a review by someone who didn't like the game every time you find one? How many threads have you started with a link to a bad review? I think anybody who's been here more than a week knows you don't like the game. Exactly what's your point, and what do you hope to accomplish? The game will be the best selling game of the year. At worst, second behind GTA. Millions and millions are loving it. You and the reviewers you dig who don't like the game are such a tiny fraction of the people who have played the game your statically irrelevant. Can'tyou just move on to a game you actually like aalready? Or are you just some sort of contrarian?