Reviews VideoGame / Fallout 4

See, I don't get why so many people piss and moan about Fallout 4. The engine is similar in function to Fallout 3/NV with a new coat of paint and better functionality, which is something they've done before between Oblivion/Fallout 3 and Skyrim. That's one thing to be cross about, but to call them lazy for not measuring up to fan expectations is a serious overreaction.

I can't speak for the story, but they honestly changed up the gunplay and VATS significantly so that you weren't stopping and starting all the time. The dialogue was a bad move, but they made an effort to fully voice both a male and female protagonist which would have taken a while, and they added a fleshed out companion system compared to the lumps of clay that followed you into battle in 3 as well as a fleshed out mod system. And they kept everything under wraps, even after a Reddit leak in like 2013 and a leak from a guy who worked on the opening cinematic, and revealed it on their own terms. They poured time and effort into making this game, keeping it secret until they felt it was ready, but they're lazy because you were disappointed.

From what I've played of this, it has its meh and janky moments, sure. But I wouldn't call it lazy. You say that this game has no "right" to be average? I say that you put this game on a pedestal and lashed out when it didn't hold up to New Vegas' writing. Which wasn't even made by Bethesda themselves. You have every right to be disappointed by the game's shortcomings, but calling them lazy after pouring however many years into the game's development is kinda childish to say, as is saying that it had no right to be average. It just points out how disappointed you were while throwing a tantrum at big bad Bethesda.

...And that was more aggressive than I wanted to sound. I'll refrain from commenting in this section until Ihave a keyboard again and not a PS3 controller.

I began the comment as a general statement, and even if I'm not fully on board with your review it wasn't quite right to sum everything up as pissing and moaning. That was rude and I apologise for starting on such a bad opening sentence. I'm also fairly condescending around the end, and I wish I could change the wording.

I think it might be better described as Linkara once described Power Rangers Megaforce: baffling laziness.

All the effort that should've gone into sorely lacking areas is painfully apparent in places where they've hurled themselves bodily into the task of fixing things that weren't broken and adding expensive, high-effort things that actively detract from the experience.

I would have been more detailed had the stupid restriction of 400 word reviews been in place. I guess a supermassive kickstarter just simply isn't enough to raise a wordcap.

In any event, there is a lot of laziness to this game. My dislike of Skyrim notwithstanding, it felt like people actually have a crap while they were making it, and that there's at least stuff to do. Fo4, as I said, has the majority of its content stored away in the faction quests (two of which will become locked away) and infinitely recyclable radiant quests that are pelted at you constantly.

As to NV being by a different team, I'm aware and it's another strike against Bethesda. Because Obsidian were smaller, operating under a smaller budget, and still managed to make a game that was far larger and engaging than 3 and certainly 4. I mean... god the dialogue system alone runs circles around the 'AAA superawesome next gen experience.' Likewise Obsidian didn't dump the karma system, had a proper faction mechanic, and had those factions be far more engaging and interesting. With Bethesda's resources, if they had the passion to match, they could've made something just as good with just as much content.

But Bethesda's work ethic, as it has been since Skyrim, now boils down to 'let the modders do it' with everything from sidequests, to bug fixes and decent animations being the things to be added in. And they will, because most people will place their hands on their hips and say 'Oh that wacky old Bethesda, let's go ahead and finish this game for them.'

I'd go into more detail on the plot, but I suppose some people might still fear spoilers. But it's really not all that engaging, and it's hard to even care right off the bat because you're expected to want to avenge/save a spouse and son you have all of five minutes interaction with. For whatever faults Fallout 3's story had, the extensive relationship built with James was enough to make me want to pursue him.

Something I'll never be able to understand is when people complain about this game and Skyrim trimming down stats, skills, perks, etc. into just perks and skills.

Like, I get it. People hate change, and laziness is easy. It would be so easy to just leave things the way they've always been, where in order to be any good at, say, diplomacy at all, you need a high Charisma, high Speech, several related perks, Speech as a tag skill, and probably a trait too.

What nobody ever says is that this is super goddamned obnoxious. It's even worse in games where you have a character class - then you need to build around your class, and that often prevents you from taking things that make you better at other stuff. Freedom? Bah! More numbers, more restrictions!

And as for dialogue - player dialogue choices have never been great in computer RP Gs, with the exception of Planescape Torment and others like it. It's often, as the OP said, "yes, yes, snarky yes, no except yes". This game just trims the fat and lets you see what's been going on under the hood in such games for ages. And it's not like you can't ask about lore and such, those details exist as they did in Mass Effect, accessible the same way, through a similar radial menu.

Also, I'm going to say something controversial - I didn't care for the New Vegas story. It had very well-written dialogue, I'll absolutely grant that, and they put a lot of thought into the setting and lore! That's about it, though. Still the same "save the world" stuff I've seen in a thousand other games, only with the "unusual" twist that you can side with the bad guys. And there are multiple "good" factions and endings. Yay. Honestly, though, it all falls completely apart if your immediate reaction to the player character's starting situation is "I wonder how the weather in Chicago is this time of year." You can't actually do something like that, you have to stick to the game world and (sooner or later) follow the plot breadcrumbs.

Like, at least this game follows the trend of past games besides NV and actually gives your character a personal stake in things. Fallout 1, you're saving your vault. 2, you're saving your village. 3, chasing your father. 4, chasing the man who killed your spouse and kidnapped your son. All of those are fine motivations! "Some guy shot me and left me for dead, and I have to go after him because it's written in the script" isn't very compelling for me. And really, it's not like your relationship with your father in 3 was that much more detailed than the time spent with your family in 4.

And you complain about the Grey and Grey Morality of Fo4 but laud NV, which did the exact same thing with even more moral ambiguity? Why should I side with any of the factions in NV, except to give the Legion a big middle finger?

Also, the karma system is replaced with per-faction reputation in 4, much like the similar mechanic in New Vegas. But I'm sure you find it worse this time because reasons.

There are actual things to complain about in Fallout 4 - the lack of diplomatic quest resolutions in many cases, the constant quests from Preston demanding you go out of your way to clear out raider camps and settlements, the way weapon and armor customization boils down to "scroll to the bottom, make, attach, repeat", the way the combat shotgun and combat rifle look goddamn identical, and so on. All your complains seem like someone who has rose colored glasses about NV pretending that everything that isn't exactly the same is wrong. And even the stuff that is the same...

"This game just trims the fat and lets you see what's been going on under the hood in such games for ages."

Oh yes, of course! It's not bad writing and design, the crap dialogue wheel was actually a brilliant deconstruction of past RPG tropes. Mine eyes hath been opened!

"And really, it's not like your relationship with your father in 3 was that much more detailed than the time spent with your family in 4."

It is though. While 3's prologue is a little overlong, you still get a fair bit of interaction with your father, from childhood through to early adulthood, and you get the general feeling that there's more to things than what he tells you at first. With 4 you spend about 2 minutes with your spouse, exchange 3 lines of dialogue, and then bam it's wartime.

"And you complain about the Grey and Grey Morality of Fo4 but laud NV, which did the exact same thing with even more moral ambiguity? Why should I side with any of the factions in NV, except to give the Legion a big middle finger?"

There were at least interesting characters in NV's factions, charismatic types that could draw you in, and the fact that one group is objectively worse than all others and gives you a definite say of 'well at least they can't be worse than the Roman cosplayers." The Institute kinda drew me in, but they just do so much stupid stuff. The Bo S are now dicks because... I dunno, too much whining that they weren't like the classic Bo S. There's the grungy robo-hippies who are also dicks. And the Minutemen, who would be fine if you could put Preston on the first Vertibird to the Glowing Sea. I never really thought "well, no matter who I pick, they can't be any worse than X faction) I didn't care because it felt like it wasn't going to be any good for anyone.

"the lack of diplomatic quest resolutions in many cases, the constant quests from Preston demanding you go out of your way to clear out"

Yes those are also issues. I even mentioned the latter.

"All your complains seem like someone who has rose colored glasses about NV"

I referenced NV because it's a game from 2010 designed by a much smaller studio, that somehow managed to be much broader, deeper and with a longer lifespan than a AAA game created by a large studio. Hell, even 3 is a much more enjoyable experience, and I'm probably one of the few that outright enjoys both 3 and NV. But 4 isn't as good as either of it's predecessors except in a few regards, and there was no actual reason for it to turn out like this.

I note that you didn't actually make any counterargument about the dialogue, you just decided to be snide - I'll take that as you admitting the point: that player responses in RP Gs have never been impressive, and never will be.

---

I mean, yes, if you want to rush through the intro in 4 you absolutely can, but you can alternately spend time chit-chatting with your spouse and playing with your son - at least as much time as you were given with your father. Hell, most of the prologue in 3 was spent talking to other people in the Vault who you only ever see again in one optional sidequest, so it's hardly impressive.

---

The existence of compelling NP Cs is a great thing, I agree, but if your reason for picking an ending in New Vegas is "I like this person more than that other person" then I don't know what to say. It's like you're on the verge of admitting that the only reason to pick a side is, as I said, to give the Legion a finger, but then this is somehow an objectively good thing?

Besides, the factions in 4 have plenty of moral arguments to sway you one way or another. The Bo S and Institute would both bring order to the region, the Bo S through force and tyranny, the Institute through their synthetic secret police. The Railroad may seem like jerks to you (though I can only think of one, maybe two who act rough, and even then they have their reasons), but they are simply trying to end what in their eyes is a form of slavery. And you admit that the Minutemen are undeniably a force for good, Bethesda just handled their radiant quests poorly. There are reasons to pick a side, they're just not as simplistic as "this person is cool and fuck the Legion".

---

So, yes, you do have rose colored glasses about NV. Because you call it broader and deeper and having a longer lifespan, ignoring the many problems it too has. It's still running on the exact same creaking engine as 3, it still has the backwards and extremely restrictive stat/skill/perk/trait system that serves no purpose except to have numbers for the sake of numbers, it moralizes endlessly at you because the lead designer had his own personal take on the setting and he went out of his way to self-insert himself as an NPC to tell you all about it, the complete absence of a reason to start the story at all unless you're highly revenge-minded to begin with, the bog-standard nature of the "save the world from the evil empire" plot... you only sound increasingly like someone who refuses to see the faults in NV. Is it a great game? Absolutely. Is it the best game ever? Of course not. Is 4 a great game? Absolutely. Is it the best game ever? Of course not. Both of these can be true.

The dialogue system is miles better in NV. Why ? For the simple reason that you can actually see what you are going to say as a character. That's far better from the "RP" standpoint of "RPG". Also, the fact that it allows for more than 4 answers to exist to a conversation.

The dialogue is also far, far better written than in 4. A matter of opinion, of course, but I don't even remember smirking once choosing any of the sarcastic dialogue options. Even the Silver Shroud stuff is lazy: it's not hard writing that kind of thing.

I also found the companions bland and uninteresting for the most part - Nick and Curie are fairly charming for sure, but the rest feel like a concept that someone found cool without really trying to create an interesting character behind that. A ghoul dressing like John hancock ? How wacky !

Ways that people try to justify 4 and "politely" tell the reviewer to eff off.
1. Oh, people don't like change
2. Trimming down content is good
3. You're a NV Fan-boy!
4. You're wrong and I'm right
5. You're just whining you whiner

Seriously, all these arguments against the review with tons of words almost always boil down to this... scratch that, they all boil down to these reasons, and possibly more dumb ones. Also I bet 5 bucks that most of these people are new to Fallout, like the people new to MGS and praise V as the best thing ever.