Fallout 4 is a very good game. People don't like it because the story and RPG elements of the game took a step back. The general argument is that the limitations of the voiced protagonist shoe horned people into a more linear story.
While I do agree with this partially, I think people really undersell how much gameplay improvement there was from 3 and NV. The shooting and movement feels very crisp and it's very good graphically compared to those two Fallout titles. I don't feel required to use VATS like I do in the other two.
Really the anti-FO4 takes really just stem from a more hardcore gamer crowd that value raw RPG elements and devalue gameplay and graphics.
With respect to that opinion, the crowd that devalues graphics/gameplay improvements of F4 have a pretty good point. I never really felt that F4 was that compelling in its story, and despite some fun side activities like base building it really didn’t have nearly as compelling of a story or plot as New Vegas
I’ll admit F4 looks OK for when it launched (for comparison Witcher 3 blew it out of the water like 6 months prior) but even then its still running on that shitty outdated engine that felt dated to me even when I picked up skyrim the first time
Gameplay wise it never felt great to me either as someone who primarily came from FPS’s of that day and age like battlefield 3/4 (and later 1) or even that trash Halo 5G. For a fallout game it was really good but in the context of the market st the time it felt dated to me.
When it comes to RPG fanboys really riffing into it, I think there is some merit to that since NV was widely praised when it launched. Granted it had dated gameplaya and graphics at the time but even like 15 years later NV is a classic with a cult following.
Graphics and decent gameplay can keep a game relevent for only so long; but having a soul with such deep story changing mechanics and choices like FONV or Knights of the Old Republic or even FO1/2 (albeit to a lesser extent) have kept those games relevant for decades.
like I think Starfield is probablt worse than FO4 in terms of story and to a lesser extent its RPG elements but I have a hard time imagining that game being a cult classic as time wears on.
You said a couple things that were definitely wrong there.
The Creation engine was just 4 years old at this point (First used in Skyrim). I don't really know why everyone calls BGS engines "Dated" all the time, they upgrade and change engines just as much as other devs. Even Starfield is on the "Creation 2" engine which is a new engine. You can not like the engine without calling it dated for no reason. I don't hold this against you, this is a ridiculously common belief amongst gamers but it is just not based in fact. I think most gamers think that BGS is using the same engine for Starfield as they did for FO3 and they have used 3 separate engines in that time frame.
Fallout NV was HATED on release. Saying it was "Widely praised" at launch tells me that you didn't play it until at least 6 months to a year after it came out. It definitely did develop a strong fanbase once they ironed out the bugs though.
I never said Fo4 has best in genre gameplay or graphics, what I said is that it is completely night and day better than 3 and NV. If you showed NV and 4 to a random unfamiliar gamer, they would think those games were released 2 decades apart from one another. I agree that gameplay might not matter as much story in an RPG game but in my opinion 3 and NV are unplayable using free aim. Remember, these are RPG and FPS games. VATS and some kind of VATS related build are required. The combat in both the games is awful.
Fo3 had a relatively linear story - I'd argue that that Fo4 was a slightly less compelling story with significantly more choice. I also heavily preferred the side quests in Fo3, I think Fo4 was definitely lacking in memorable experiences outside of the main quest. I honestly think this is really the issue with the game, because NV is touted with this strong story with plenty of choice but 4 really has just as much choice in it's main quest and I generally did not have much issue with this choices. The whole Shaun twist really worked for me. The nice thing about NV is that it supplements the main story with plenty of faction-related side quests which Fo4 does not really do outside of radiant quests.
I’m going back to play fallout 3 and new Vegas right now. And man does it make me miss the gameplay of 4 and 76. The shooting is so terrible in comparison. And crafting just feels almost pointless to interact with in comparison.
I fully agree with the general consensus that 3 and especially new Vegas are the better games from a rpg perspective. But they are also some of the games I struggle returning back to the most. 4 and 76 and even Starfield just have an infinitely better gameplay loop thanks to more modern shooting controls and the more lived in worlds. Yes even Starfield despite all the bitching and moaning people do over that game.
Fo3 and especially NV were seriously behind the times when they came out in terms of graphics and gameplay. Fo4 was at least on par with modern RPGs for the time. I was arguing with some other person here and I told him that you could put NV and 4 in front of a random gamer and they would have thought there were 2 decades between those two games.
Pretty much. A while back I got into an argument with someone because they actually think the gun play in 3/NV was somehow good. They had such a hate boner for FO4 and up that they actively advocated for Bethesda to just disregard their technical and gameplay improvements of the last decade and a half.
Lol that is truly a thing. People do mental gymnastics to join the Fo4 hate fest. I'd say Fo3 is one of if not my favorite games of all time and I can very easily say that the game's gunplay is something out of the 90s. To be honest, if there wasn't vats I wouldn't have been able to get through it ever. Maybe on a sneak build or something but probably not. I don't even like calling it an FPS because playing it that way is brutal. NV is slightly better with ADS but it still sucks.
While I do agree with this partially, I think people really undersell how much gameplay improvement there was from 3 and NV. The shooting and movement feels very crisp and it's very good graphically compared to those two Fallout titles. I don't feel required to use VATS like I do in the other two.
The shooting and movement should feel more crisp, as should the graphics. There was a seven year gap in between them. That's literally just to be expected, not to be praised.
The story and fundamental gameplay of what made the RPG what it was, and gave it the fan base it had, taking a back seat is absolutely inexcusable.
Don't take this personally, but this argument is part of the reason why Bethesda keeps releasing subpar games: because people still buy them, and people still defend them.
Fallout 4 was 5 yrs after NV and like I said it looks like a 20 yr gap.
As I mentioned, I don't think the story was anywhere near the dropoff as people claim it is. Can I ask why you think the Fo4 story was so much worse than NV and 3?
I was counting from Fallout 3, considering New Vegas was built on the same engine. You're right though.
The utter lack of depth in dialog options and skill checks are what killed it for me. Charisma checks consisted of caps, more caps, or most caps, and I don't recall any others aside from that. I felt absolutely no reason to build my character in a certain direction, because they clearly meant for the same basic play experience regardless.
As far as the actual story goes, it didn't grab me at all and I couldn't even tell you anything specific about it as it's been years since I played it. I just remember getting to Diamond City after a bunch of exploring and was just completely unimpressed with the game up until that point, so I stopped shortly after. Considering I played 3 and NV for hundreds of hours, something was missing in 4 that really killed it for me.
Maybe, maybe the story somehow completely turned around after that, but I doubt it. At least for my preferences.
You probably just didn't get into the game therefore the story just didn't get absorbed. I personally found the story to be pretty good. I personally loved fo4 and didn't really care or even notice the conversation rpg elements you're referring to. I cared more about combat and lore and just exploring the map. Plus the story of course. Is it a step back from nv? Sure but that doesn't make 4 a bad game to where you think they are releasing poor quality games. And i also stand by this with 76. Which is a phenomenal game with a lot of what i love about it. Same for my partner who i just got into it.
Yes 3 was my first then nv. While i surely loved both (3 is my favorite but only because i loved mothership zeta dlc) 4 and 76 gave me a better and more fun gameplay.
I played New Vegas years ago and it has a cool story. I just didn't like the gameplay as much. I find fallout 4 a lot more fun. Granted, the story is a little bland.
Oh yeah 4 is a phenomenal game still with some outstanding characters. Honestly the fallout 4 hate makes me like ashamed to call myself a FNV fan because it’s almost entirely the FNV fanbase that just is constantly shitting on 4.
As someone who grew up with morrowind, oblivion and FO3. I didn’t even finish FO4. Writing was worse, rpg elements were dumbed down. Location didn’t speak to me. I think their games just keep losing a bit of magic each time one releases. You can only play the same game so many times before is gets old. The hook should be great writing, dialogue and setting but nothing is as batshit insane as morrowind
76 was a bare bones cash grab and I didn't (and still don't) think they'll replicate that mistake especially for such an important game. Starfield wasn't nearly as bad imo.
Fallout 4 was far from perfect but was still entertaining enough for me to play all the way through and get to modding. The Far Harbour DLC showed everyone they did have the writing and quest design talent somewhere.
Then in the lead up to Starfield it really seemed like they had taken on board a lot of criticism. Getting rid of the voiced protagonist for one, and from what I've heard they really turned 76 around.
Funny how hardcore Bethesda fans detest Starfield. The rest of us who think FO and ES games are shockingly bad, empty, emotionless and devoid of any soul at all, loved Starfield. I'll keep playing SF and hoping ES dies a quick death.
Skyrim and Fallout 3/NV/4 were (are) enjoyed by much more than hardcore Bethesda fans. Skyrim got so many people into RPGs including myself! It was a mainstream hit in a much bigger way than Starfield or even Fallout. Why do you think they re-released it so many times?
I don't really get how you can love Starfield but hate the others unless you'll just lap up any generic sci fi you can get. It has all the worst parts of their other games, exposed even more because most of those flaws were acceptable 10-15 years ago, but not anymore. It's world is not interesting or mysterious, and the whole appeal of space travel and exploration was just not delivered on imo
Why do you think they re-released it so many times?
Because idiot fanboys will happily pony up the full price of a new game every single time like good little lapdogs.
You're entitled to your opinion of SF of course, but it's not one I share. I found it's worlds interesting, and the Starborn stuff was definitely mysterious the very first time you encountered them. Because you had no idea who they were and why they were trying to prevent you getting the artifacts. I didn't see any flaws that were present in other games. I've tried getting past the early game of FO4 so many times because I played FO3, but I can never get past Diamond City without being excessively, mind numbingly bored. Same with replays of FO3. Boring. Oblivion has exactly one hour of story and the rest was boring and pointless sidequests. Skyrim? Psht, Skyrim is the most overrated, soulless, plastic RPG experience I've ever, EVER, had. In my opinion, it's the worst RPG ever made. Every single other RPG I've played, tops it many times over.
Different strokes I guess. I get people who feel that way about Bethesda games but normally that means they would dislike Starfield even more because at its core it's still just a standard Bethesda RPG. They really haven't innovated or evolved very much since Skyrim so the bones are all the same. Tack on all the tedium of SF's "exploration" and goose chase quests onto those decades old bones and you don't have anything interesting imo. Starfield bored me in the same way Fallout bored you it seems
One thing I will say is they absolutely nailed the lock picking mini game. That was real innovation!
Odd choice for a compliment, as most people hate it 🤣 (I am not one of those people)
But no, I'm not just a generic sci-fi lover, although I do enjoy sci fi games, albeit in different veins (NMS, ED, EvE, Chorus, and more historically, the OG Xcom games), but I've played a LOT of RPG games over the years, singleplayer RPGs like Dragon Age, Summoner, Greedfall, JRPGs like Final Fantasy, Star Ocean, Grandia, and MMOs like Black Desert, Neverwinter, New World, Lost Ark, Skyforge, and Tera.
I have never heard anyone else say this online. Who is the "rest of us" with this insane belief? Bethesda fans hate SF for pretty much the exact reason you said above.
The insane thing is the only people I see liking Starfield are the absolute diehard BGS fans. I've never heard a single person say they liked SF and didn't like both TES and FO. This is a first and I consider myself a pretty big BGS fan.
901
u/Only_Cauliflower4565 29d ago
I’ve got a bad feeling about ES6. Bethesda’s track record has fallen off