3737

Another thing to consider are the controls. I haven’t tried Witcher 3, but I could never, ever, get the hang of combat in the first two on m+k, because, well, I just couldn’t. Fallout 4 uses bog-standard FPS controls and it’s very well executed. For me, that, and the combination of combat, loot, and general stuff, plus the (to me) rather interesting and well-executed physical geometry of the world made it quite fun. I agree 100% that you don’t make much impact on the world in a meaningful way, and you have pretty much no decisions to make worthy of the name. But none of that bothers me; it might bother others.

I long ago stopped playing RPGs to make decisions or actually, um, play a role. I play them to kill things, take their stuff, and get stronger so I can kill more things, and take their stuff. The more variety in geography, locations, and stuff involved, the better, but in the end I’m perfectly happy with Groundhog Day.

Now, I would be down for a game that did that sort of thing AND offered meaningful other stuff, I guess, as long as the controls weren’t wonky and it didn’t make me think too much.

3738

Are there other RPG’s where you can get the sads as an ending? I don’t remember that possibility in Fallout or Fallout 2 for example, or many other RPG’s that I have played for that matter.

That said, this guy seemed to get the sads:

3739

I don’t understand this complaint. Yes, each faction has a base, would be kind of strange not to, right? And yes, each faction gives you quests. Since this is an RPG, it would be kind of strange if you joined a faction and they didn’t give you anything to do. And yes, there is a finale, but they are different depending upon what factions you join and which you wish to destroy. And since a games gotta end, it’s gotta have finale, right? I guess you could have factions without bases, quests and endings but it wouldn’t be much of a game :)

3740

Nope. If they stopped their quote at “We’re also doing a complete overhaul of Fallout 4.” then maybe yes, but they didn’t.

3741

I can’t agree with this. I loved Fallout 3. I liked Fallout NV. As a fallout game, I hated fallout 4. As a generic open world FPS game, I liked fallout 4. That is just liked, not loved. It was not a memorable gaming experience.

3742

Grifman, the only real difference, IMHO, was between The Institute and everyone else.

They all have the same “go around and talk to the heads of each ‘department’” intro tour. They all have radiant quests that suck the life out of the game. They all end with similarly (except The Institute) down to having the same name for the final quest. And they all kind of suck as far as imparting any kind of urgency to the player.

It’s telling to me that at a certain point, you can be friendly to all the factions at the same time and remain in a kind of ally limbo. You can wander into faction forces fighting each other and they’ll just ignore you. Like literally ignore you. You can walk through the firing and no one seems to care. Which is kind of how I felt at that point.

3743

Yes, many. You can check by yourself.

Also, I would classify Fallout 1’s ending as a sad ending.

3744

And just to be non-snarky, I enjoyed my time overall with Fallout 4, but it was purely as a clunky shooter that offered “radiant” combat engagements. I don’t think I was impressed by any of the RPG elements. Not once.

3745

Yep, same sentiment from me. Adding new mechanics or difficulty measures to survival might be fine but it won’t change the really dull quests and world. Hell, even mods are likely going to be saddled with those quests until the end of time, but in their case at least we might get some major gameplay overhauls that make up for it.

3746

Fallout 1 you saved the world. Maybe things didn’t end up perfect for you but the world was in a better place afterwards.

A lot of those games aren’t RPG’s. That said, given the definition seemingly used by that site, Fallout 4 has at least two downer endings:

  1. Where you help the evil Institute to dominate the Commonwealth
  2. Where you help the semi-facist BoS to dominate the Commonwealth

So Fallout 4 does have a couple of sad endings.

3747

And how is Fallout 3 better than Fallout 4? Or have your tastes just changed and you wouldn’t like Fallout 3 today?

3748

Basically this:
I cared about the world and the people in fallout 3. The world was memorable in many ways. My actions really did matter and change the world. Basically when I stopped playing fallout 3 it was like this:
I was on patrol and saw some bandits and I killed them to make the world a safer place. Not because of the xp or loot, but simply because I was vested in the world enough to want to make it a safer place. And then I had a realization. There were no more quests and the bandits would just respawn in a few days so it didn’t matter.

Think about that for a minute…

Now so you know what magic left the world of fallout 3 that caused me to stop playing? Yeah, I had no more ability to make any more meaningful impact upon the world. There was nothing left to do that could change anything. With that, I left. I was a wonderful ride, but it had run its course. I was left with very fond memories.

I will carry with me my memories of harold the ghoul/tree. Of my escape from the UFO. Of my adventures in the wasteland survival guide. Of my time in the battle of anchorage. Of the betrayal of the ghouls in ten-penny tower and many, many other things.

When fallout 4 ended, my first reaction was, “WTF?! Did I just finish the game?” Then thinking there had to be more, when there really wasn’t. It was a very meh experience. In years to come Ill still remember fallout 3, but there is nothing to remember in fallout 4.

So what did fallout 3 have over fallout 4? Everything that truly matters.

3749

Pretty much this. For instance, I enjoyed Borderlands. I didn’t love it, but it was a moderately fun time that I was glad I didn’t pay anything for (came with a graphics card). If Fallout 4 is closer to that, it’s more of a steep discount game for me than getting it now.

3750

Eh, it comes down to how you define “RPG” I guess. I grew up playing D&D (1st Ed, then AD&D, mostly), for PnP games, and then Gold Box for the computer era. All of those games, real-life and digital, focused on leveling, killing, and looting. To me, that was “role-playing.” I never got into PnP sessions where people emoted a lot and developed alternative worlds. I liked blasting goblins and whacking orcs and stuff. So, my computer “RPG” game taste is in the same vein. I appreciate stuff like Torment, for instance, but the original Fallout 1 & 2 I loved for being tactical combat games with loot, not for whatever story about the vaults and the post-apocalyptic world was being told.

That’s just me–I fully recognize that many, many people feel strongly that the stuff I don’t care much about is crucial to the RPG experience. In that vein, yeah, Fallout 4 blows goat. It’s a shooter sandbox with leveling and loot, and a cool environment. But it has about as much emotional resonance as a Speed Racer cartoon. Maybe less.

3751

Well, he was a DEMON on wheels.

3752

I’m thinking about it and scratching my head because you contradict yourself:

My actions really did matter and change the world.

I was on patrol and saw some bandits and I killed them to make the world a safer place. Not because of the xp or loot, but simply because I was vested in the world enough to want to make it a safer place. And then I had a realization. There were no more quests and the bandits would just respawn in a few days so it didn’t matter.

So on the one hand your actions mattered and changed the world but on the you later realized that it didn’t matter because the raiders you just killed would respawn in a few days? Sorry, that doesn’t make much sense to me :)

3753

So you had choice, which didn’t exist in Fallout 3 (or Fallout 1/2 for that matter). And of course, each of the factions has different and opposing goals.

They all have the same “go around and talk to the heads of each ‘department’” intro tour.

Uh, and how do you suggest you should find out who your vendor/quartermaster is, your armorer is, your commanders/department heads? That’s sort of how it’s done in real life when you are the new guy, right?

They all have radiant quests that suck the life out of the game.

That’s one opinion. But of course, you could totally ignore them if they bothered you that much. You could go do the non-radiant quests (the factions have those also), do other non-faction related quests and stick to the main quests line, or just go out and explore. Choice!

They all end with similarly (except The Institute) down to having the same name for the final quest.

That’s not totally correct. After taking out the Institute, the Minutemen can attack and take out the Brotherhood, if you consider them a continued threat to the Commonwealth. You can launch an artillery strike on the airport and the Prydwen and the BoS will attack the Castle. But yeah, the Institute is the bogeyman so they have a target on their back.

And they all kind of suck as far as imparting any kind of urgency to the player.

Most games do this poorly. Fallout 3 you really needed to find your dad, that’s why you left the vault but you could dawdle all over the wasteland. Geralt is looking for Ciri in TW3 but finds plenty of time to do this and that along the way. Most RPG’s have this inherent contradiction - there’s a really bad situation that really needs dealing with - but you are so weak at the beginning that you have to level up, gain abilities, amass an arsenal to be able to take on the big bad, who patiently waits while you do this. Other than Fallout 1 which had a time limit (later removed because of complaints, name a game that does this well? The only one I can think of is Mass Effect 3 - each quest as I remember was directly related to gather support/resources to defeat the Reapers. I don’t remember any pure side quest that had you go off on a side quest not directly related to the war effort - you really felt pressed as each mission felt important. But that’s the only one I can think at the moment.

It’s telling to me that at a certain point, you can be friendly to all the factions at the same time and remain in a kind of ally limbo. You can wander into faction forces fighting each other and they’ll just ignore you. Like literally ignore you. You can walk through the firing and no one seems to care. Which is kind of how I felt at that point.

It’s weird but it make sense to a certain extent. All the factions believe you are on their side so of course they don’t shoot at you. And if you join the fight in one side, then you kill everyone on the other side and no one is the wiser because of that. But yeah, they could have handled this better probably. But it hardly ruins the game, IMO.

3754

Well that’s certainly a valid comparison. Two of your memorable moments are related to DLC’s which Fallout 4 has released none of yet. Looks like more than a little bias here, maybe? That said, Fallout 4 had the Silver Shroud quests, retaking the Castle and establishing the Minutemen HQ, taking on raiders and a deathclaw in power armor to save a group of refugees, helping save the USS Constitution, discovering the secret of Cabot House, finding out what happened to the Bos “Lost Patrol”, finding Curie and saving a young boy in the process. All were memorable to me. Heck, setting up a network of thriving settlements where people found safety and refuge mean a ton to me as a role player.

When fallout 4 ended, my first reaction was, “WTF?! Did I just finish the game?” Then thinking there had to be more, when there really wasn’t. It was a very meh experience. In years to come Ill still remember fallout 3, but there is nothing to remember in fallout 4.

And why was that? You destroyed the Institute (assuming you took that course). Why was that any different from destroying the Enclave in Fallout 3?

So what did fallout 3 have over fallout 4? Everything that truly matters.

Everything you mentioned above is rather subjective, which is fine, because people respond differently. But it doesn’t really tell me much.

But as a game Fallout 4 is far superior:

  1. Crafting/weapon modding
  2. Base building
  3. Much better NPC companions
  4. I like perks better than skills, but YMMV
  5. Much better, more involved, more choices main quest
  6. Factions that you can join (choice) - IMO, the main problem here is that you couldn’t really influence their direction/actions very much
  7. Much more dense and active and alive wasteland, with it being quite easy to find 2, 3, even 4 factions in battle (Fallout 3 was pretty tame compared to the Commonwealth wasteland)
  8. Real sense of verticality, with combat and quests really reflecting what it is like to fight in a big city of tall buildings

All you’ve given me is some quests you liked for whatever reason, but for some reason didn’t like the quests and or story in Fallout 4.

3755

I think the crafting and base building (more the latter than the former) actively detract from the game, myself. Like, in a big way. I have some hope that modders will be able to make them into functional, user-friendly parts of the design once official mod support is in, but the UI is super awful as it stands. And they’re pervasive and attention-demanding without really meaningfully tying into the narrative side of the game or having a material impact on the world. Not to mention they really flare up my pack rat tendencies.

I think Fallout 4’s pretty cool so far despite that, but I wouldn’t put those as pros in its column at all.

3756

Same here. Crafting is ok, but base building needs to go.