Fallout VII - Vault-Tec calling

[ShneekeyTheLost]

That depends greatly on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a cool action sandbox with satirical science fiction elements, then it's great. If you're looking for a tight-immersive story with a well-through-out backstory, NO. I really enjoyed FO4, mainly because I didn't come to it with a bunch of sprite-based text RPG baggage. The game is mechanically very good, and the perks, weapons, and enemies are far better designed, with less runaway power creep than your typical Bethsoft title. However, if you're looking for an in-depth, dialogue driven, choose-your-own adventure experience, Obsidian is over there.

Wait... are we even talking about the same game here?

We're talking about a game that throws power armor at you in what is practically a cutscene that is impossible to avoid once you enter the building less than a half hour into the game, pits you up against a Deathclaw in it, then proceeds to wreck the difficulty curve for the next twenty levels as you simply faceroll everything until you hit your first pack of super mutants and wonder why you aren't hitting them, when you realize that you are, it just is doing that little damage to them. You're talking about a game in which a 'zip gun' style pipe pistol can be modded up to shoot .50 BMG rounds, but the Thompson Submachine Gun is shooting spitwads compared to the .38 firing pipe pistol. The game which tosses you the .44 snubnose revolver at the beginning of the game that can one-shot anything except aforementioned deathclaw until you hit super mutants. The one that throws so many suits of power armor at you that you have people who have entire CITIES of power armor wearing civilians, just because he couldn't figure where else to put the damn things. The one that has unlimited enemy progression by level while your combat ability progression is strictly capped.

That game? And it is 'far better designed'? Better designed than what, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde?

Wait til they get close, shoot them in VATS, enjoy a milk bone in a commmie-free world.

And watch as you miss eight times in a row because VATS borrowed X-COM's RNG engine, then get one-shotted unless you are in power armor

[Cikomyr]

That depends greatly on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a cool action sandbox with satirical science fiction elements, then it's great. If you're looking for a tight-immersive story with a well-through-out backstory, NO. I really enjoyed FO4, mainly because I didn't come to it with a bunch of sprite-based text RPG baggage. The game is mechanically very good, and the perks, weapons, and enemies are far better designed, with less runaway power creep than your typical Bethsoft title. However, if you're looking for an in-depth, dialogue driven, choose-your-own adventure experience, Obsidian is over there.

Strawman much?

I liked New Vegas. New Vegas wasnt a.. how did you put it?

an in-depth, dialogue driven, choose-your-own adventure experience,

.. okay, nevermind, New Vegas was *that*. But it also was a fantastic sandbox, with science fiction element, fun action. These two are not incompatible.

Just look at the example i give of the beginning. You know what would have been a great idea? Meeting an (skippable) old Hermit at the Gas Station. Have him show you the ropes. Introduce you to survival in this new, strange world. Maybe have him give a little hint regarding raiders and settlers..

And then have him bring up "hey, arent you hearing gunshots in the distance? I think the raiders found a new prey to poach".

This is not a superbly crafted textbox RPG experience. Its a ****ing introductionary scene so players keep up the immersion while organically getting their bearings.

Fallout 3 was a tad bad about it, but at least it sent you into Megaton right off the bat, giving you a few starting questlines and made you meet Moira, who is the Advanced Tutorial Character. The entire point of her questlines is to get to know more mechanics.

Compare against New Vegas. Like I said, you at least get to know what the hell is happening around Good Springs. You figure out who are fighting. You can ditch them if you want to, but at least you have a talking moment with everyone; maybe even hidden quest resolution options (like joining the Powder Gangers).

The low point of New Vegas's start, in my opinion, is Primm. You are thrown in a situation where everyone shoots at you for no reason. You have no context for the violence, just good guys and bad guys, the end.

The 30 minutes before, and the next hour of gameplay are all a beautiful, well crafted immersive experience that slowly builds up and make you discover and understand the world you are in. You meet the NCR. You meet the Legion. You get in Novac.

Maybe FO4 gets better. But so far, its just one big Primm; a contextless excuse for violence.

[Triaxx]

When does Fo4 throw a .44 snubnose at you? I only found it because I went wandering off to find it. Yes, it can one shot everything, but it's only got five shots, so you want to use them sparingly.

I wouldn't say Power Armor totally screws the difficulty curve, because early on Fusion Cores are in relatively short supply, but it's certainly very crutchy. (On the other hand since stealth sniper is the optimal way to play, Power Armor is obviously useless.)

I wouldn't call Primm a low point, as much as a decision point. You can fight your way through Primm. You can also reasonably just keep walking past town. Go to the right, and then drop off the bridge over the underpass, and head south. It's not that they have no reason to shoot you, it's just that they assume you're NCR since you've got to come from the NCR side of town. And also those in Primm were the ones that weren't... civilized enough to be Powder Gangers.

Of course, you can also cut east north of town and slip through the rail line, or if you're stupidly brave, try Primm Pass. But Primm is the point where the game is telling you to go, because you're supposed to be following the trail.

[Brookshw]

When does Fo4 throw a .44 snubnose at you? I only found it because I went wandering off to find it. Yes, it can one shot everything, but it's only got five shots, so you want to use them sparingly.
.

There's one across the river (lake?) to the south/southeast of sanctuary. However, ammo is limited.

[Triaxx]

That's the one I found, but it's out of the way enough I wouldn't call it forced on us.

[DigoDragon]

Fallout 3 was a tad bad about it, but at least it sent you into Megaton right off the bat, giving you a few starting questlines and made you meet Moira, who is the Advanced Tutorial Character. The entire point of her questlines is to get to know more mechanics.

Moira and her Wasteland Survival Guide questline has always been my favorite thing in FO3. She sends you all around the area to either test crazy inventions or do some pretty wild tasks and she's got very amusing dialog (plus your perk reward depends on the responses you picked and how much of each quest you accomplished, which is nice).

[Triaxx]

How can you not love a character who's parting line is 'Try not to die!' and said with such cheerfulness.

[Brookshw]

How can you not love a character who's parting line is 'Try not to die!' and said with such cheerfulness.

Because the quests are really pointless most of the time. "Go get injured", what's the point of that nonsense. It is kinda funny when she shows up as a ghoul if you blow megaton, not even in death will my rambling end.

[LuckGuy]

While initially annoyed that power armor required a perk in 3/NV, I've come to think of it as a great change, especially in NV where the power armor faction is only involved in side quests. You can see people in power armor, decide you want to wear that too, and then you have to go out and make it happen. That's better than in 4 which chucks suits at me left and right.

I find the combat in 4 to be pretty fun, when modded, but the story does nothing for me. Given that time is finite, playing NV or Skyrim always seems to be the more compelling choices.

The worst part about 4 are all the factions that have no gameplay except combat. Maybe I want to hire you, you idiot mercenaries? Did you consider that before shooting at the guy who wiped out the last 6 camps of people who shot at me before talking?

Lastly, since I'm loving Skyrim right now, decoupling kills from XP was a brilliant move, because it lets the designers hit you with really difficult fights. Crap, I can't kill these 4 trolls at level 3... Better sneak around to the chest. Oh hey, I got XP from avoiding them, and got better at sneaking! Neat. F4 would really benefit from that system.

[Triaxx]

Yes, but you're seeing it from the point of view of someone who has the sum total of medical knowledge readily accessible. You fall and break your leg, and you have not only the personal experience of your doctor but through him the entire knowledge of the remaining staff, and any doctor they contact. Moira's studying injury from the point of view of not having an expert. What she's got is the jerk downstairs who probably wouldn't let her watch him work. Plus she's trying to write basically a field first aid book.

On the other hand, I adore that undying, unwavering cheerfulness contrasted to the sheer depression the rest of the game wants to wallow in.

[Brookshw]

Yes, but you're seeing it from the point of view of someone who has the sum total of medical knowledge readily accessible. You fall and break your leg, and you have not only the personal experience of your doctor but through him the entire knowledge of the remaining staff, and any doctor they contact. Moira's studying injury from the point of view of not having an expert. What she's got is the jerk downstairs who probably wouldn't let her watch him work. Plus she's trying to write basically a field first aid book.

On the other hand, I adore that undying, unwavering cheerfulness contrasted to the sheer depression the rest of the game wants to wallow in.

Nope, I'm seeing it from the point of view of someone playing a game where such a basic mechanic can be, and is, explained by a quick pop up regularly, in many games, because it's a waste of play time to drag out. Same goes for most of her quests.

[Nokrud]

I find it amusing you mention the .44 snubnose and not the fatman just on the other side of the lake or other suit of power armor by the downed vertibird. All of which are reasonably "balanced" by the fact that it is very difficult to get ammo for them early on... Or you know the fatman doesnt kill anything but the player ever : ) cause by the time its worth using the enemies are bullet spongy enough to take it and laugh while if you hit anywhere close to you boom death scene : ).

I would also say that making a settlement full of power armor civilians is actually rough and takes hours and hours of play just collecting and farming re-spawning enemies with power armor... or one of the many mods that make it craft-able... Also power armor usage early even with a high int and Nuclear Physicist can barely afford the cores to use the t45 power armor for heavy combat areas forget exploring, especially if you play survival(which really should be considered the normal difficultly with many mods providing the other options of easier and harder) at the beginning of the game. Unless they have an extreme knowledge of the wasteland and know where to find all the fusion cores around and very specifically don't wander or look around.

I will say that the sandbox portion is better then the main story although I really do heartily recommend Far Harbor for a Fallout style story as soon as you can so go rescue nick then play detective who cares about your kid :).

[Brookshw]

I would also say that making a settlement full of power armor civilians is actually rough and takes hours and hours of play just collecting and farming re-spawning enemies with power armor...

Did they update it so you can tell settlers to get in power armor now? Last I tried it wasn't an option (though they sometimes jumped in it on their own).

[Nokrud]

Did they update it so you can tell settlers to get in power armor now? Last I tried it wasn't an option (though they sometimes jumped in it on their own).

Not to my knowledge but given time they will occupy it if you leave it about and the fusion core in it...

[The_Jackal]

Wait... are we even talking about the same game here?

Maybe not.

We're talking about a game that throws power armor at you in what is practically a cutscene that is impossible to avoid once you enter the building less than a half hour into the game, pits you up against a Deathclaw in it, then proceeds to wreck the difficulty curve for the next twenty levels as you simply faceroll everything until you hit your first pack of super mutants and wonder why you aren't hitting them, when you realize that you are, it just is doing that little damage to them. You're talking about a game in which a 'zip gun' style pipe pistol can be modded up to shoot .50 BMG rounds, but the Thompson Submachine Gun is shooting spitwads compared to the .38 firing pipe pistol. The game which tosses you the .44 snubnose revolver at the beginning of the game that can one-shot anything except aforementioned deathclaw until you hit super mutants. The one that throws so many suits of power armor at you that you have people who have entire CITIES of power armor wearing civilians, just because he couldn't figure where else to put the damn things. The one that has unlimited enemy progression by level while your combat ability progression is strictly capped.

Are we talking about balance or verisimilitude? Because they're not the same thing. If you want verisimilitude, I'm afraid the game with colossal mutant horseshoe crabs might not be your tip. Or, put another way, there's no reason that the automatic rifles should do any less damage than the single shot rifles. But they are designed that way to offer players interesting choices, a.k.a.: Balance.

If you're going to compare the pipe pistol to another weapon, please furnish a comparable weapon. The pipe gun that can be chambered to .50 is a bolt action, where your Thompson is a fully automatic weapon. If you compare the pipe pistol, yes, you can mod it to do comparable damage to a Thompson. Maybe the Thompson should do a bit more effect, given the heavier ammo, but 'fires like a spitwad' is a pretty unfair bit of hyperbole for a weapon that has identical damage and fire rate to its comparable pipe gun.

The .44 magnum you find early is certainly powerful, but you don't have an infinite amount of ammunition for it, so until you start encountering more leveled enemies, you're probably not going to use it very much. A .44 with no bullets compares unfavorably to a board with a nail in it.

As for Power Armor, I don't see the big deal, since, again, the trade-offs for wearing power armor are actually pretty balanced. You need fusion cores to operate it, so the teaser at the start of the game isn't nearly the mission breaking monstrosity your hyperbole would suggest, and in any case, it's entirely possible to play the entire game and barely use it.

That game? And it is 'far better designed'? Better designed than what, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde?

Yes. The game has better things that actually count: Smarter enemy AI, use of cover, more crisp gunplay, and a completely massive overhaul in graphics. If you don't think these things are important, then I'm happy to be the first to inform you that the vast, overpowering majority of the game-buying public differs with you.

And watch as you miss eight times in a row because VATS borrowed X-COM's RNG engine, then get one-shotted unless you are in power armor[/QUOTE]

http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/random/

If you can do better, my advice is to contribute. It turns out that real randomness is computationally expensive, and when you're writing a cross-platform title, you can't necessarily rely on OS-provided facilities that may do a better job. Personally, I haven't encountered your problem with VATS, though with the huge improvements in regular FPS gameplay, I don't find that it's necessary or desirable to use. Sight down the gun, point at the bit you want to shoot, and you will likely hit your target.

IMO, the only thing wrong with Fallout 4 is the legion of Interplay fanboys constantly moaning about how the franchise was sold to a company that knew how to make a successful product with it. I stand by my original remark: If you treasure what Interplay did with Fallout and Fallout 2, Obsidian games is still making top-down, turn-based games with lots of story, dialogue, choices, etc. Seriously, enjoy them, if that's your pleasure. But doing not that is what made Fallout a huge commercial success, and what made it, in my opinion, a pretty great game.

[Cikomyr]

Because the quests are really pointless most of the time. "Go get injured", what's the point of that nonsense. It is kinda funny when she shows up as a ghoul if you blow megaton, not even in death will my rambling end.

You can just skip her too. But her entire schtick was to showcase advanced game mechanics to new players.

[Triaxx]

@The_Jackal: I'll answer, because I've had this exact conversation with him. The Pipe Submachine gun, weighs the same as the normal submachinegun, and does the same damage. It's completely identical except for firing two different rounds. You can carry far more rounds of .38 than .45 if you're in survival and if not, .38 is vastly more common and does the same damage, so there's no reason to use the SMG. EVER.

Edge case of Spray and Pray being the only reliably available explosive legendary I know of not withstanding.

That isn't what's wrong with Fallout 4. I swear up and down, as someone with incredibly fond memories of Fallout 2, that it's not that. Fallout 3 was a fantastic adaptation of what had been a single level 'tabletop' experience. I compare it to the transition from Legend of Zelda Link to the Past into Ocarina of Time. That was, while not without it's flaws, such a masterful effort to succeed at what could have been an incomprehensible disaster if it didn't work.

Fallout 3 had it's flaws. Percentage speech checks for one. And yet, I couldn't have made better. I struggle to think how the transition could have been made better.

The problem comes with the comparison to NV. NV did right, what Fallout 4 didn't. It took that solid base that Fallout 3 established and improved the RPG elements. Dumped the percentage speech checks for hard numbers. (And some very amusing failure lines.) It streamlined the skills without dumping. Small Guns and Big Guns became Guns. The original reason for their separation was one of game mechanics. They used different formula's to calculate themselves, and so were separate. Fallout 3 removed the difference in formula, and so NV was able to combine them without losing anything. And in that spare slot, came Survival, which tied into several in game mechanics. Thirst, hunger, and sleep, or just pure healing if you weren't in hardcore mode. Shooting was still solid, and if the physics for placing individual objects was occasionally spazzy, the fact that you could send a deathclaw flying over a cliff face with a shotgun blast made it worth it.

Fallout 4 took a swing and completely missed the target. They tried to take a Skyrim approach, by cutting out the difficult stats, and streamlining the game. Except they forgot that the reason it worked in Skyrim, is because what they were cutting was B.R.O.K.E.N. Stats in Oblivion were broken and if you didn't power level, you were getting weaker instead of stronger. Even in Morrowind, it was something you kind of needed a spreadsheet to understand. But even in Fallout 3, the RPG system worked just fine. The skill system meant you could customize your character to an extent you chose. You could be a smooth talking near pacifist. The option, difficult though it was, existed to talk down the final boss. (Autumn) Or you could elect to be a Rambo style character, and gun fight your way through everything. Fallout 4 only gave you the option of gunning your way through, or bashing your way through with melee. Talking was basically not an option.

The other problem is 'improving' the shooting. There was nothing wrong with the shooting in Fallout 3/NV. Or rather what seemed wrong, was because the skills of your character affected the performance of the weapon. Unfortunately, what's wrong now, is that when I click the mouse to pull the trigger, there's a noticable delay in the gun firing, which wasn't present in F3/NV. And worse still, the issue where the gun barrel will occasionally miss in VATS because it doesn't start until the end of the gun which is now behind them, still EXISTS.

So no, discounting nostalgia and rose-colored glasses, Fallout 4 is not good. In fact, it's not the problem that it's not better than Fallout 2, as much as the problem that it's not better than Fallout 3 in a few cases. And if the sequel is not as good as the predecessor, something has gone wrong.

[factotum]

Most of what Triaxx said I agree with. By removing the option to talk your way out of 95% of encounters, Bethesda took away a lot of what makes a good Fallout game. This is why Far Harbor is the best DLC by far, because it actually gives you different options depending on what you say to people--if they'd only done that for the main game as well I'd be much happier.

I don't actually mind too much the changes made to the RPG system, heretical as it sounds--you still get significant customisation options, and to my mind that's the main purpose of stats and skills in an RPG; if I play the game more than once I want to know I can play significantly differently second time around.

[Avilan the Grey]

I do disagree with most of it.
To me Fallout 4 is definitely the best Fallout to date, but then I am not really a fan of New Vegas at all. The marginally better story (than Fallout 3) is not really enough to lift the game past Mediocre.

[Cikomyr]

I do disagree with most of it.
To me Fallout 4 is definitely the best Fallout to date, but then I am not really a fan of New Vegas at all. The marginally better story (than Fallout 3) is not really enough to lift the game past Mediocre.

I will argue with you over your assessment.

But then i will also understand that you have every reason to like what i dislike, and dislike what i like. So enjoy your fun game ;)

[The_Jackal]

@The_Jackal: I'll answer, because I've had this exact conversation with him. The Pipe Submachine gun, weighs the same as the normal submachinegun, and does the same damage. It's completely identical except for firing two different rounds. You can carry far more rounds of .38 than .45 if you're in survival and if not, .38 is vastly more common and does the same damage, so there's no reason to use the SMG. EVER.

Edge case of Spray and Pray being the only reliably available explosive legendary I know of not withstanding.

That isn't what's wrong with Fallout 4. I swear up and down, as someone with incredibly fond memories of Fallout 2, that it's not that. Fallout 3 was a fantastic adaptation of what had been a single level 'tabletop' experience. I compare it to the transition from Legend of Zelda Link to the Past into Ocarina of Time. That was, while not without it's flaws, such a masterful effort to succeed at what could have been an incomprehensible disaster if it didn't work.

I agree, the Tommy gun thing is dumb, but it's a nitpick, not a 'Literally unplayable' problem.

Fallout 3 had it's flaws. Percentage speech checks for one. And yet, I couldn't have made better. I struggle to think how the transition could have been made better.

The problem comes with the comparison to NV. NV did right, what Fallout 4 didn't. It took that solid base that Fallout 3 established and improved the RPG elements. Dumped the percentage speech checks for hard numbers. (And some very amusing failure lines.) It streamlined the skills without dumping. Small Guns and Big Guns became Guns. The original reason for their separation was one of game mechanics. They used different formula's to calculate themselves, and so were separate. Fallout 3 removed the difference in formula, and so NV was able to combine them without losing anything. And in that spare slot, came Survival, which tied into several in game mechanics. Thirst, hunger, and sleep, or just pure healing if you weren't in hardcore mode. Shooting was still solid, and if the physics for placing individual objects was occasionally spazzy, the fact that you could send a deathclaw flying over a cliff face with a shotgun blast made it worth it.

The speech issues, the story issues, the flat/non-existent RPG choices, these are all a direct function of the improvement in production values. Whether you agree that going fully voiced was an improvement (I think there's valid opinions on either side, I fall on the 'less machinima, more gameplay' side) it's indisputable that there was no way you were going to get a wild branching plot with every utterance in the game recorded and animated by professional voice actors. But, ultimately, the criticisms of this kind boil down to one simple thesis: New Vegas was the apogee of the Fallout franchise, and no successor can be any other type of game. I refute this notion, wholesale. Fallout 4 is a sandbox game, quite distinct from a roleplaying game. It has a great deal more in common with Grand Theft Auto than it has with Baldur's Gate or Deus Ex. That doesn't make it a better game, or a worse game, but rather a different type of game, and I would argue, a great game. If that's not your type of game, that's your opinion, but I will not countenance the notion that because Fallout 4 wasn't NV++ that it's a garbage game. That is, quite simply, idiotic.

Fallout 4 took a swing and completely missed the target. They tried to take a Skyrim approach, by cutting out the difficult stats, and streamlining the game. Except they forgot that the reason it worked in Skyrim, is because what they were cutting was B.R.O.K.E.N. Stats in Oblivion were broken and if you didn't power level, you were getting weaker instead of stronger. Even in Morrowind, it was something you kind of needed a spreadsheet to understand. But even in Fallout 3, the RPG system worked just fine. The skill system meant you could customize your character to an extent you chose. You could be a smooth talking near pacifist. The option, difficult though it was, existed to talk down the final boss. (Autumn) Or you could elect to be a Rambo style character, and gun fight your way through everything. Fallout 4 only gave you the option of gunning your way through, or bashing your way through with melee. Talking was basically not an option.

Again, I totally disagree. They were in no way trying to the target you had in mind. Fallout 2 sold 123,000 copies in the first two years from its release. New Vegas sold 11.6 million copies in five years. Fallout 4 shipped 12 million copies to retailers on their first day, and sold 1.2 million copies on Steam, on their first DAY. Now you might say that's all marketing and not gameplay, but that doesn't explain why now, in the middle of the afternoon, on a Wednesday, Fallout 4 is still in the top 20 games being played on Steam. Fallout 4 is a great game. If you dispute this, you are demonstrably, empirically wrong.

The other problem is 'improving' the shooting. There was nothing wrong with the shooting in Fallout 3/NV. Or rather what seemed wrong, was because the skills of your character affected the performance of the weapon. Unfortunately, what's wrong now, is that when I click the mouse to pull the trigger, there's a noticable delay in the gun firing, which wasn't present in F3/NV. And worse still, the issue where the gun barrel will occasionally miss in VATS because it doesn't start until the end of the gun which is now behind them, still EXISTS.

Take it from someone who's played a lot of FPS titles. There was a lot wrong with the Fallout 3/NV shooting. There was so much wrong with it, it verged on unplayable. Fallout 4 isn't quite up to a true FPS title's level of responsiveness and nuance, but it's gotten leaps and bounds better than the slideshow that was Fallout 3.

So no, discounting nostalgia and rose-colored glasses, Fallout 4 is not good. In fact, it's not the problem that it's not better than Fallout 2, as much as the problem that it's not better than Fallout 3 in a few cases. And if the sequel is not as good as the predecessor, something has gone wrong.

Who's really wearing the nostalgia goggles here, though?

[Rynjin]

The speech issues, the story issues, the flat/non-existent RPG choices, these are all a direct function of the improvement in production values. Whether you agree that going fully voiced was an improvement (I think there's valid opinions on either side, I fall on the 'less machinima, more gameplay' side) it's indisputable that there was no way you were going to get a wild branching plot with every utterance in the game recorded and animated by professional voice actors. But, ultimately, the criticisms of this kind boil down to one simple thesis: New Vegas was the apogee of the Fallout franchise, and no successor can be any other type of game. I refute this notion, wholesale. Fallout 4 is a sandbox game, quite distinct from a roleplaying game. It has a great deal more in common with Grand Theft Auto than it has with Baldur's Gate or Deus Ex. That doesn't make it a better game, or a worse game, but rather a different type of game, and I would argue, a great game. If that's not your type of game, that's your opinion, but I will not countenance the notion that because Fallout 4 wasn't NV++ that it's a garbage game. That is, quite simply, idiotic.

Problem is it's a ****tier sandbox than New Vegas is too, because you have less options for how to affect the world beside the tedious settlement building mechanics.

For that matter Deus Ex is a better sandbox game too so I'm not sure what your point is.

Seriously what, to you, makes Fallout 4 any more sandbox-y than 3 or New Vegas?

Because from where I'm standing it's no better of a sandbox (and in many ways worse) but also loses out on solid writing, better world building, more memorable characters and scenarios, and solid RPG mechanics.

In return it does get better gunplay (though a smaller selection of weapon types, at least viable ones) and mediocre voice acting added to the protagonist. Good trade?

[Triaxx]

I don't mind the Tommy Gun thing, because I often play sub-optimally (read not absolute min-maxing). Nothing is quite as fun running around hosing down people with a Tommy Gun. Especially if it explodes them.

We weren't going to get NV++. NV was a once in a lifetime, fluke of a game that's not going to get topped. Matching it would be a remarkable feat. Deus Ex has the same problem. The first one was so good, and had a multi-branching path with near complete voice acting. The linear corridor shooter sequels just can't match it. I was expecting a superior sequel to Fallout 3. I didn't get it. Fallout 3 was a near perfect sandbox. With the exception of the reasonably, and explicably quest locked Monsterland and Baddieville, the entire world was lain at your feet the moment the sun shone in your eyes, provided you were cunning and daring enough to grab it. Fallout 4? Yeah, a sandbox, except for the parts that flat out don't exist until you're told they do. I can make a level run one to Littlelamp Light. I can go straight to Raven Rock or into the Jefferson Memorial. I can bee line to dad. Kellogg is a ghost, his door is boarded over even though his minions are in the midst of the dungeon already. Even if you do break into his house in Diamond City before talking to Nick, the button just doesn't exist. Go into Greenetech and... oh, sorry, this dungeon doesn't exist. It's a sandbox, but a curiously restricted one. I never said it was garbage. I said it wasn't as good as Fallout 3.

We're talking about two different targets. You're talking a sales target and it undeniably hit that so completely out of the park it's impossible to make a comparison. I'm saying the missed the target of being Great. If you want me to run around shooting things, give me a Great Place to do it. If you want to tell me a story, make it a Great Story. If you want me to play an RPG, give me Great RPG elements. The Commonwealth is nice, but varies in density so much that you can shoot that one monstrous dog with a silenced weapon and have hordes of disparate factions descend upon you like angry hornets, and in other spots, empty your minigun into the air and not hear anything after the echoes have died away. The story is pointlessly convoluted, and no matter which faction you reach the Institute from, you've heard nothing but that they are the evil scourge of the Commonwealth. And then they ask if you'd like to work for them, a comment which should make you immediately recoil in horror. Cutting the skills out is a sensible choice, all things considered, but the perks vary from useless (VANS) to nearly pointless (Do slightly more damage.) The high end, top of the line perks are just as bad. Pain Train is awesome, but should have been somewhere down near Armorer. Nuclear Physicist? You've got a super power and it's to make batteries last slightly longer? That's not a super power for anyone but an Apple Engineer. Perks ended up being forced to take up the mantle of skills being the thing you take to become slightly better, instead of giving you the ability to bend the world to your will. ShoddyCast has a video about the same thing.

You're right, F3 and NV were awful FPS's. The corridors were too wide, giving enemies a chance to move slightly to the side and avoid the predetermined path of the bullets. And that whole dropping off from level flight after a certain distance or deviating to the sides as if wind had pushed them, totally unrealistic. Should definitely only have gone in nice straight lines. ERROR: Sarcasm Overload

Sorry, I deal typically with two kinds of FPS nuts. 1)All Guns Should Be Hit Scan Insta-Kill (In ALL CAPS) and 2)Only Plays Realistic Physics Simulator 9000 Sorry for automatically lumping you in with either kind of those. Too many people who've only played games and not actually handled a gun that will yes occasionally just decide it's had enough of hitting where you're aiming and miss wildly. Change in temperature, sudden gust of wind, rotation of the earth, all things beyond anyone's control.

Sorry, but with lines like: I thought there were no children because this was the European version of Fallout 2, there was no hope of surpassing it. Fallout 3's a better sandbox. There's enough space between places to get a feeling you're alone in a desolate wasteland, while having enough random enemies who keep you on your toes. Fallout 4's so crowded, that you can't back away from one encounter, without getting embroiled in a second.

Fallout 4 isn't bad, but it's not great.

[LuckGuy]

Yep, Triaxx has it.

[Cikomyr]

I am not convinced. But lets say I accept the base idea that FO4 is a better sandbox than NV

Why?

[Triaxx]

Civilization or rather a general lack of it. Wander the Mojave, and you run into Fiends, Powder Gangers, and Khan's all factions with which non-bullet relations can be established (Only Valid for Vault 3 Fiends). Plus the NCR, and even the Legion have a system where knowledge of what you've done is known by all.

Contrast the Commonwealth, where 90% of the enemies are Raiders there's no one you could negotiate with. So it's a better Sandbox, if only because your actions have fewer consequences.

[Balmas]

All right. So i also got myself Fallout 4 recently, and I wanted to share my initial impressions.....
Does the game gets better? Has it only been designed as a "LOOK HOW COOLZ THIS WEAPON IS" simulator?

Wish I could say yes.

That depends greatly on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a cool action sandbox with satirical science fiction elements, then it's great. If you're looking for a tight-immersive story with a well-through-out backstory, NO. I really enjoyed FO4, mainly because I didn't come to it with a bunch of sprite-based text RPG baggage. The game is mechanically very good, and the perks, weapons, and enemies are far better designed, with less runaway power creep than your typical Bethsoft title. However, if you're looking for an in-depth, dialogue driven, choose-your-own adventure experience, Obsidian is over there.

Nice strawman you've made there, glad to know the only way I could possibly think Fallout 4 was a weak entry in an otherwise strong franchise was because I had baggage from RPGs I hadn't played when I started Fallout 4...

Compare against New Vegas. Like I said, you at least get to know what the hell is happening around Good Springs. You figure out who are fighting. You can ditch them if you want to, but at least you have a talking moment with everyone; maybe even hidden quest resolution options (like joining the Powder Gangers).

The low point of New Vegas's start, in my opinion, is Primm. You are thrown in a situation where everyone shoots at you for no reason. You have no context for the violence, just good guys and bad guys, the end.

The 30 minutes before, and the next hour of gameplay are all a beautiful, well crafted immersive experience that slowly builds up and make you discover and understand the world you are in. You meet the NCR. You meet the Legion. You get in Novac.

Maybe FO4 gets better. But so far, its just one big Primm; a contextless excuse for violence.

D'you know, I'd never really appreciated just how well built New Vegas's start was until you laid it like that? In one little segment, you have a microcosm of the wasteland as a whole. You're introduced to lockpicking, hacking, crafting, factions, in an immersive and entirely optional way.

Are we talking about balance or verisimilitude? Because they're not the same thing. If you want verisimilitude, I'm afraid the game with colossal mutant horseshoe crabs might not be your tip. Or, put another way, there's no reason that the automatic rifles should do any less damage than the single shot rifles. But they are designed that way to offer players interesting choices, a.k.a.: Balance.

Hmm. I'm having difficulty putting my thoughts on paper, but lemme try.

To my mind, balance and interesting choices are almost mutually exclusive. If you want all weapons to be balanced against each other, you have to do the math to make sure that they all perform roughly the same. Balance needs all weapons to be in the same ballpark as each other; you might have small variations in power, but they'd need to perform about the same. In order for there to be interesting choices, guns need to be different from each other, with negatives and positives to them. That means that players can try different builds, different weapons, and get a new experience each time. Using a bow should feel different than using a sniper rifle or an LMG or an SMG.

Examples of interesting choices in weapon design include Payday 2 and Borderlands 2. In each game, you have different weapon types that behave vastly differently. Heck, even within weapon classes, different manufacturer bonuses mean you're going to have a vastly different experience with a Bandit pistol than a Jakobs pistol. Being able to use skills to support different weapon types means that you can have a shotgun Zer0, or a pistol Mastermind setup, or a maniac who runs around with a buzzsaw and a grenade launcher. None of these things are balanced. There's always going to be an optimal loadout and skill setup, but having a robust variety of guns and skills to support them means that players can use something else and still have fun.

Unfortunately, Fallout 4 has neither interesting weapon choices, nor skills to allow for different weapon setups, nor even a semblance of balance to justify the blandness in the weapons. All of the weapons feel almost the same when you fire them. The skills are bland +X% to damage when using Y type of weapons. And even with all that, the weapons are imbalanced; Semi-auto rifles are more powerful than semi-auto pistols, and the DT calculations mean that both groups are more effective than commando-type weapons. And then you add in legendary effects, and any pretense of balance is thrown out the window, until you wind up with a hot mess of weapon types that are imbalanced while also being somehow dull and lifeless.

IMO, the only thing wrong with Fallout 4 is the legion of Interplay fanboys constantly moaning about how the franchise was sold to a company that knew how to make a successful product with it. I stand by my original remark: If you treasure what Interplay did with Fallout and Fallout 2, Obsidian games is still making top-down, turn-based games with lots of story, dialogue, choices, etc. Seriously, enjoy them, if that's your pleasure. But doing not that is what made Fallout a huge commercial success, and what made it, in my opinion, a pretty great game.

The vast majority of people who bought and played Fallout 4 have probably never played an Interplay Fallout. The problem isn't that grognards are complaining that Fallout 4 doesn't live up to 1 and 2. It's that people who bought, played, and enjoyed Fallout 3 and New Vegas recognize that Fallout 4 has made several steps back from even those most recent 3D Fallout games.

Fallout 4 took a swing and completely missed the target. They tried to take a Skyrim approach, by cutting out the difficult stats, and streamlining the game. Except they forgot that the reason it worked in Skyrim, is because what they were cutting was B.R.O.K.E.N. Stats in Oblivion were broken and if you didn't power level, you were getting weaker instead of stronger. Even in Morrowind, it was something you kind of needed a spreadsheet to understand. But even in Fallout 3, the RPG system worked just fine. The skill system meant you could customize your character to an extent you chose. You could be a smooth talking near pacifist. The option, difficult though it was, existed to talk down the final boss. (Autumn) Or you could elect to be a Rambo style character, and gun fight your way through everything. Fallout 4 only gave you the option of gunning your way through, or bashing your way through with melee. Talking was basically not an option.

Well said that---

The other problem is 'improving' the shooting. There was nothing wrong with the shooting in Fallout 3/NV. Or rather what seemed wrong, was because the skills of your character affected the performance of the weapon. Unfortunately, what's wrong now, is that when I click the mouse to pull the trigger, there's a noticable delay in the gun firing, which wasn't present in F3/NV. And worse still, the issue where the gun barrel will occasionally miss in VATS because it doesn't start until the end of the gun which is now behind them, still EXISTS.

...And just like that, you've lost me. There's a ton of things wrong with 3's shooting, and even with New Vegas. Shooting in 3 and New Vegas is clunky, awkward, and slow, to the point that most of my Fallout 3 characters relied on VATS because I couldn't hit them myself. Compared to 3 and New Vegas, the better shooting of Fallout 4 is a blessing.

A blessing tempered by the fact that it's still only mediocre gunplay from shooters of ten years ago, admittedly, but still a blessing

The speech issues, the story issues, the flat/non-existent RPG choices, these are all a direct function of the improvement in production values. Whether you agree that going fully voiced was an improvement (I think there's valid opinions on either side, I fall on the 'less machinima, more gameplay' side) it's indisputable that there was no way you were going to get a wild branching plot with every utterance in the game recorded and animated by professional voice actors. But, ultimately, the criticisms of this kind boil down to one simple thesis: New Vegas was the apogee of the Fallout franchise, and no successor can be any other type of game. I refute this notion, wholesale. Fallout 4 is a sandbox game, quite distinct from a roleplaying game. It has a great deal more in common with Grand Theft Auto than it has with Baldur's Gate or Deus Ex. That doesn't make it a better game, or a worse game, but rather a different type of game, and I would argue, a great game. If that's not your type of game, that's your opinion, but I will not countenance the notion that because Fallout 4 wasn't NV++ that it's a garbage game. That is, quite simply, idiotic.

Here's the thing. I'd be perfectly happy if Bethesda had decided to just make a Fallout sandbox. I'd be ecstatic with NV++. But Bethesda decided to give us a game that was neither. If you want to play it as just post-apocalyptic shoot-scavenge-loot-build game, then you have tons of things that are locked behind story content, and the RPG side of things means that the settlement building controls are unreliable at best and downright vexing at worst. If you want an RPG experience, then you'll be frustrated by the nonexistent choices and constant series of missions that amount to nothing more than "go find loot in this location." Both sides of the game are hosed because Bethesda couldn't make up their damn minds about what game they wanted to make, and the resulting game is mediocre for pretty much everyone involved.

Again, I totally disagree. They were in no way trying to the target you had in mind. Fallout 2 sold 123,000 copies in the first two years from its release. New Vegas sold 11.6 million copies in five years. Fallout 4 shipped 12 million copies to retailers on their first day, and sold 1.2 million copies on Steam, on their first DAY. Now you might say that's all marketing and not gameplay, but that doesn't explain why now, in the middle of the afternoon, on a Wednesday, Fallout 4 is still in the top 20 games being played on Steam. Fallout 4 is a great game. If you dispute this, you are demonstrably, empirically wrong.

You seem to have confused "sold a lot of copies" with "is a great game," there. I'll note that there was a lot of hype surrounding Fallout 4, because Fallout 3 and New Vegas were such excellent games. Bethesda could have shoveled a turd in a DVD case and shipped it, and people would have bought it.

I'll also note that if we're charitable and assume that only a quarter of those 12 million retail copies were PC version, that means that of the 4.2 million people who bought Fallout 4 on launch day, 23K (0.5%) of people are still playing the game two years later. Those are some brilliant retention numbers, there, truly indicative of a quality product with massive staying power. Compare that to indie titles like Rust, a buggy, glitchy sandbox Battle royale game that somehow has maintained almost ten thousand more active players than Fallout 4 despite having only a quarter of Bethesda's sales. Or PUBG, the current #1 played game on steam, which has hit 10 million copies sold and 2.6 million active players today, despite still being in beta.

It's almost like sales aren't indicative of the quality of a game at all, and trying to use them as evidence of said quality would be demonstrably, empirically wrong.

Take it from someone who's played a lot of FPS titles. There was a lot wrong with the Fallout 3/NV shooting. There was so much wrong with it, it verged on unplayable. Fallout 4 isn't quite up to a true FPS title's level of responsiveness and nuance, but it's gotten leaps and bounds better than the slideshow that was Fallout 3.

That much I agree with. One of the main problems with Fallout 3's shooting, I feel, was VATS. It was a crutch that let Bethesda get away with shipping a first person shooter that was barely capable of first person shooting. You had no reason not to use it, given the massive 90% damage reduction while doing so and the additional 15% chance to critical hit. That same power, though, meant that you had a choice of either watching the game play itself for you, or wrestling with the barely adequate shooting controls of Vanilla Fallout 3.

[factotum]

Whether you agree that going fully voiced was an improvement (I think there's valid opinions on either side, I fall on the 'less machinima, more gameplay' side) it's indisputable that there was no way you were going to get a wild branching plot with every utterance in the game recorded and animated by professional voice actors.

Unless you're CD Projekt Red creating the Witcher 3, you mean? Also, they managed it in Far Harbor, which has a whole bunch of branching options.

[Triaxx]

Multiplayer games have non-indicative retention numbers. IE, lots of people will play them because lots of people have to play them for other people to play them. A terrible game with good friends can still be more fun than a good game by yourself.

Alright, given I've stated why I find Fallout 4's shooting worse, and yet everyone seems inclined to disagree, someone want to explain exactly what they found wrong with 3/NV's shooting?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'll grant that FO4's shooting engine is superior to FO3's and NV's... but unfortunately while the controls are better, the weapon selection is infinitely worse and horridly unbalanced.

The reason FO3 and NV's shooting was not one of its strong points is that it wasn't an FPS masquerading as an RPG or Sandbox. It was a Sandbox RPG that had firearms that worked... okay-ish, for its day. Surprisingly well, actually, considering the leveling system that was built into it instead of having just static damage numbers and mechanics for each weapon like every FPS of the day did. But what it DID deliver on was being a solid sandbox RPG.

FO4... did not. Somehow, they managed to deliver a WORSE plot than FO3, locked a ton of content behind the main plot so you can't just avoid it, provided only a few weapons but didn't bother trying to balance them, then expects you to like the fact that they did a genre shift from Sandbox RPG to FPS with light RPG elements.

Also, Balamas did an excellent job, I think, in explaining the difference between sales numbers and retention numbers. Day 1 sales do not, and in fact cannot, be a measure of a good game, because NO ONE HAS PLAYED IT YET! People are buying the game on faith and hype. But the retention numbers clearly spell out that FO4 is anything BUT a good game. In my mind, FO4 is the worst title to date, and that INCLUDES Tactics.

The other problem is that FO4 sacrificed so much in the name of catering to consoles. The absolutely wretched dialogue system which has precisely four repsonses for any given stimuli: Yes, Scarcastic Yes, Pass A RNG Dependent Charisma Check To Ask For Caps Yes, and Maybe Later... that came from the fact that they wanted a reflexive response system like is found in most FPS's these days. Unfortunately, it was neither responsive (there wasn't a time limit, after all), nor reflexive, nor is it an FPS title. The abysmal controls overall... because it is designed to be played from a controller, so they dummied it down to fit on a controller. Which is why you can still frag yourself trying to perform a melee attach while possessing a moltov cocktail.

Sales wise? Sure, they made out like a bandit catering to the console crowd. But I don't think FO5, if there ever will BE another Fallout main title, will have the same sales, just because of how badly FO4 treated the fans.