Fallout 4

[AntediluvianArk]

And it’s written with a sort of childish petulance

That sums up all of RPGCodex. :-)

Should be the website’s tagline.

-Todd

[Paul_cze]

It took about 90 minutes but I read through it at work. Might be the best, most detailed review I have ever read of anything. Proper analysis, not just review. I wish Bethesda designers would read it, but I doubt they ever will. They just won BAFTA so who cares about some stupid fansite :(

In terms of dungeon design, the most noteworthy feature are the humorously posed skeletons, teddy bears, and toy monkeys strewn about. Fallout 4 is very big on this type of “environmental storytelling”, and they seem to have put a lot of work into this stuff. True, almost every dungeon crawl still amounts to a pattern of “enter at door, shoot everything that moves, find treasure room, loot, leave.” Yes, trap variety feels worse than in Skyrim, with swinging blades and trapdoors replaced by lame ol’ mines and tripwires linked to explosives. And doing the same two lockpicking and hacking minigames again and again and again and again is really not fun at all. But look at these skeletons! They’ve been choking each other on top of a safe for over 210 years now! They must really hate each other! Why is this teddy bear reading a newspaper and holding a coffee mug? Bears don’t drink coffee! Hey, are those letter blocks spelling words? Why? How?!? I don’t understand! This is so awesome! And so on and so forth. These are instances where I have to accept that I’m not part of the mainstream target audience and simply move on; I only wish there had been a few decent puzzles in the game.

Oh yes, the C and I parts of SPECIAL are still in the game, and more than ever Bethesda seem to have no clue what to do with them. Fallout 4 is most assuredly not the kind of game where you frequently make meaningful decisions in dialogue, and hard stat checks are, as we all know, not Bethesda’s idea of good game design. So what do Charisma and Intelligence do in this game? Intelligence gives 3% bonus experience per level and reduces the number of possible solutions shown in the hacking minigame. And that’s it. That’s what being intelligent means in the sequel to Fallout 1 and 2. Why couldn’t they just remove the damn stat altogether?

The dialogue system reaches its absolute nadir in those moments when you do not have a choice at all, but the game wants to pretend that you do; unfortunately, these moments are quite common in Fallout 4. For example, at various points in the Brotherhood of Steel storyline, the Brotherhood’s fanatical leader Elder Maxson will give you an order to do some righteous murdering. He will make clear that you are a soldier in his army (indeed, you have to swear an oath to be admitted), that your life belongs to his Brotherhood now, and that even the slightest hint of disobedience will see you severely punished. You can then choose to accept his order, you can politely, but firmly refuse it, you can say “But that’s genocide! You’re mad! Absolutely mad!”, or you can instead make a totally unrelated humorous remark. All of these options will lead to the exact same result: you get the quest added to your log, and Maxson will give you a promotion if you complete it.

That entire passage about dialogue system is incredible.

And quest design…ah the quest design

Let’s look at a few examples of story quests. First, there’s “MacCready for Action”, which is the story of your companion Robert Joseph MacCready. MacCready’s a returning fan favourite from Fallout 3, where he served as the adorably obnoxious child mayor of Little Lamplight. He’s a fully grown man now, and after a few hours of passionate lockpicking he will reveal his tragic backstory to you: MacCready’s wife was ripped apart by feral ghouls a few years back, leaving him to care alone for a terminally ill son who is suffering from an unknown disease. MacCready has set out into the Commonwealth in search of a cure, and he needs somebody to help him follow the quest markers. Half an hour of pew-pew later, you hold an experimental cure for an unknown disease in your hands, and now you’re off to try and see if it will cure the kid! No, actually you aren’t, because the kid is lying comatose in a shack somewhere near Washington D.C., and that’s outside the game world. Well, then MacCready has to go and try to cure his kid himself! Goodbye Robert, hope you and your spawn find happiness! Ah, but no – MacCready is bound to you, his lord and mistress, and will not leave your side. Instead, he gives the cure to “a caravan master he trusts”, sends it off to his son, and then the quest is over and the story’s done.

And here’s my analysis: Jesus Christ, are you fucking kidding me? Why the hell wouldn’t the guy go home to his dying son? Is he mentally ill? Why can’t I order MacCready to go? His kid is dying! The cure may not work! It may kill him! He may already be dead! Why does the game build up such a strong thematic connection between the PC and MacCready (dead spouse, son in distress, now they’re scouring the Commonwealth for a solution), only to fuck it all up by saying “eh, that dude’s kid will be fine, he’s just suffering from an unknown fatal disease with an experimental cure and may very well be dead already. Your kid, on the other hand – quick, let’s have another emotional dialogue! Start quivering, girl!” This type of writing is not merely self-defeating, but it’s actually harmful to the game; until I played through this quest, I had no idea what utter hacks Bethesda’s quest writers were. After this uncomfortable episode, I never used MacCready in my party again; when the main quest was over, he was still hard at work tilling my fields.

[Telefrog]

It’s needlessly condescending, arrogant, and completely avoids any attempt at empathy with other viewpoints. It’s also, as noted, way too long, and the set up–the shocking facts thing–is not handled well, from the way the section headings are written to the overall presentation of information. So, yes, here are twelve ways F4 drops the ball. But what’s missing is any sort of awareness that for millions of gamers–not thousands, millions–those things may not matter much. And it’s written with a sort of childish petulance that makes neutral observers feel that the criticisms aren’t as valid as they actually are.

Absolutely. It’s RPGCodex, so I guess we’d all be disappointed if it wasn’t all of the above with regards to Bethesda’s modern games. Fallout 4 is not going to please anyone looking for deep RPG stuff like story, or meaningful choices, or well-developed characters. But if you want to explore post-apocalyptic dungeons and blow the heads off super-mutants with a railroad spike gun, then Fallout 4 has got you covered. Sometimes, that’s good enough. I enjoyed my time with Fallout 4. Yes, there are a million little ways it could be better, and about a dozen really big ways I hope Bethesda doesn’t carry into their next game. But then I’m shooting a vertibird out of the sky or running backwards frantically from a glowing ghoul and it’s all good.

[Paul_cze]

I guess my problem is that as much as I did actually enjoy the game for the reasons Telefrog describes, it is still hard for me as a long time Fallout fan to accept that this is what the series devolved into, and this is what it’s future might (and probably will) be from now on. I wish this would NOT be enough. I wish this kind of terribleness at such important aspects (writing, quest design, rpg system…) would mean some hardcore critical pounding from mainstream, not just rpgcodex/nma. If a game like this wins over 50 GOTY awards…dammit, if it wasn’t for TW3, Fallout 4 would again be the most critically acclaimed game of the year. How is that even possible. Did none of those people play New Vegas ?

[zx81-Amd64]

If anything Fallout 4 has got me back to revisiting Fallout 3(+mods). I might even resurrect that modding thread for FO3 i had to give up on due to forum issues (that seem fine now). Not sure i have the time, but i’ll see.

After Morrowind, and after having experienced Oblivion (gates in particular) i pretty much saw the writing on the wall in terms of where Bethesda was going. Tod Howard is a massive fps fan, he grew up shooting stuff in the face, and that gaming DNA is strong in the general direction Bethesda games seem to be trending towards. Not that there is anything wrong with shooting stuff in the face, it is a fun pastime; but if you want more, well in terms of depth of characters and story for the fantasy openworld crpg genre i think CD Projekt and the Witcher series are now kings of that genre.

[TheWombat]

I guess my problem is that as much as I did actually enjoy the game for the reasons Telefrog describes, it is still hard for me as a long time Fallout fan to accept that this is what the series devolved into, and this is what it’s future might (and probably will) be from now on. I wish this would NOT be enough. I wish this kind of terribleness at such important aspects (writing, quest design, rpg system…) would mean some hardcore critical pounding from mainstream, not just rpgcodex/nma. If a game like this wins over 50 GOTY awards…dammit, if it wasn’t for TW3, Fallout 4 would again be the most critically acclaimed game of the year. How is that even possible. Did none of those people play New Vegas ?

I hear you. But, 1) that review is terrible. Yes, the critical points made have merit, but the way they’re made is unprofessional, sloppy, and easily dismissed by people not already drinking the RPGCodex Kool-Aid. It’s bad writing, bad journalism, and bad communication, no matter how accurate the points; and 2) the reason no one else says these things is that, by and large, the mainstream does not agree. I respect the views of those who don’t like F4 at all, and can definitely see the reasons for the dislike. But money talks and bullshit walks–the market has spoken and spoken very loudly. There is a minuscule market for what RPGCodex wants.

[Major_Malphunktion]

Where is my monocle?

[Paul_cze]

I hear you. But, 1) that review is terrible. Yes, the critical points made have merit, but the way they’re made is unprofessional, sloppy, and easily dismissed by people not already drinking the RPGCodex Kool-Aid. It’s bad writing, bad journalism, and bad communication, no matter how accurate the points; and 2) the reason no one else says these things is that, by and large, the mainstream does not agree. I respect the views of those who don’t like F4 at all, and can definitely see the reasons for the dislike. But money talks and bullshit walks–the market has spoken and spoken very loudly. There is a minuscule market for what RPGCodex wants.

The review is not terrible. It is detailed while providing great examples of the game’s problems. Is it abrasive and “rude” and unprofessional ? Sure. But then this is a fansite and the review is written buy a guy who bought the game, instead of being paid for playing and writing about it. The review is also hilarious and on point, much more than any mainstream one I have read. I couldn’t care less if it is great journalism or communication (whatever the fuck that means) according to your standards, I don’t go to codex for that anyway.
As for whether there is market for what RPGCodex wants, well RPGCodex wants good writing and quest design, logical consistent worlds, stuff like that. There was one big AAA RPG that had that while also being successful, and some smaller ones that had that which were also successful. So I wouldn’t say there is a miniscule market for that. New Vegas also sold millions of copies and its quality, for some bizzare reason, didn’t get in the way of that.

[TheWombat]

The review is not terrible. It is detailed while providing great examples of the game’s problems. Is it abrasive and “rude” and unprofessional ? Sure. But then this is a fansite and the review is written buy a guy who bought the game, instead of being paid for playing and writing about it. The review is also hilarious and on point, much more than any mainstream one I have read. I couldn’t care less if it is great journalism or communication (whatever the fuck that means) according to your standards, I don’t go to codex for that anyway.
As for whether there is market for what RPGCodex wants, well RPGCodex wants good writing and quest design, logical consistent worlds, stuff like that. There was one big AAA RPG that had that while also being successful, and some smaller ones that had that which were also successful. So I wouldn’t say there is a miniscule market for that. New Vegas also sold millions of copies and its quality, for some bizzare reason, didn’t get in the way of that.

We’ll have to disagree, then, on the writing. As someone who has made his living writing and editing, and as an academic makes his living essentially on good communication of information, yeah, I stand by my opinion that’s a terrible article. But if all you want is a data dump of stuff you agree with already, by all means, indulge yourself. The thing is, if you actually, you know, want to convince anyone else that your points are valid, you can’t write like that. It’s the worst form of preaching to the choir or living in a bubble.

As for the market, New Vegas was roundly panned for a lot of the same sort of shortcomings in its time. The market for people who want what this author is asking for is, I still maintain, small. No game made meets his criteria, and no game ever will. You can have some of all of the things the article author wants; you can’t have them all. It never has happened, and it never will.

[kedaha]

We’ll have to disagree, then, on the writing. As someone who has made his living writing and editing, and as an academic makes his living essentially on good communication of information, yeah, I stand by my opinion that’s a terrible article. But if all you want is a data dump of stuff you agree with already, by all means, indulge yourself. The thing is, if you actually, you know, want to convince anyone else that your points are valid, you can’t write like that. It’s the worst form of preaching to the choir or living in a bubble.

As for the market, New Vegas was roundly panned for a lot of the same sort of shortcomings in its time. The market for people who want what this author is asking for is, I still maintain, small. No game made meets his criteria, and no game ever will. You can have some of all of the things the article author wants; you can’t have them all. It never has happened, and it never will.

As someone who made his living writing and editing, and in particular as an academic who makes his living on communication of information, you should understand the idea of subjectivity in writing (both in the creation and consumption of it). That you don’t, and instead seem to believe that there are universal truths in writing no matter the audience, the medium or the environmental context - makes me curious just quite how you have successfully made such a living.

This is an article on the codex, by a codex member, for other codex members. Despite this, you have the desperately misguided view that it should be written in the form and style of an article targeted at you, and hypothetical/imagined third parties who a) don’t visit the codex and b) never will.

I also find it extremely interesting that you firmly believe that because perfection in something can’t be attained, one shouldn’t even bother trying.

Strange, it’s all very strange.

[Murbella]

We’ll have to disagree, then, on the writing. As someone who has made his living writing and editing, and as an academic makes his living essentially on good communication of information, yeah, I stand by my opinion that’s a terrible article. But if all you want is a data dump of stuff you agree with already, by all means, indulge yourself. The thing is, if you actually, you know, want to convince anyone else that your points are valid, you can’t write like that. It’s the worst form of preaching to the choir or living in a bubble.

As for the market, New Vegas was roundly panned for a lot of the same sort of shortcomings in its time. The market for people who want what this author is asking for is, I still maintain, small. No game made meets his criteria, and no game ever will. You can have some of all of the things the article author wants; you can’t have them all. It never has happened, and it never will.

New Vegas was unfairly slammed for the same bugs that Fallout 3 had but people ignored out of devotion to the developer.

I agree with your conclusion though. The market does not want story based rpgs. It wants light, open world rpgs and shooters, preferably in the same package.

As someone who loves quality writing/dialog/choices & consequences/deep rpgs, i feel for the people on rpgCodex, but i’m an adult and realize that video game developers/publishers are not a charity doing it to cater to me. Instead they are going to target the unwashed masses, which is life. So i can spend my limited free time complaining about how the unwashed masses don’t understand good writing in games, or i can just play a game i might not enjoy as much as my ideal game, but i still enjoy a ton.

Also, i’ll plug my view point that the new ideas they did in fallout 4 worked well but the problem was they did them half assed with numerous half implemented features, bugs and balance problems. Everything new they added in fallout 4 felt half done and not thought out fully.

[Joseph]

30 page review and what was the point!? I almost feel sorry for the reviewer. The entire premise was based on a faulty assumption… That the qualities of a story based crpg were at all relevant to this game. May as well have reviewed it as a flight simulator…

[BadSport]

How can a ranting diatribe maintain its credibility with a click bait headline like that?

[Paul_cze]

We’ll have to disagree, then, on the writing. As someone who has made his living writing and editing, and as an academic makes his living essentially on good communication of information, yeah, I stand by my opinion that’s a terrible article. But if all you want is a data dump of stuff you agree with already, by all means, indulge yourself. The thing is, if you actually, you know, want to convince anyone else that your points are valid, you can’t write like that. It’s the worst form of preaching to the choir or living in a bubble.

As for the market, New Vegas was roundly panned for a lot of the same sort of shortcomings in its time. The market for people who want what this author is asking for is, I still maintain, small. No game made meets his criteria, and no game ever will. You can have some of all of the things the article author wants; you can’t have them all. It never has happened, and it never will.

“Trust me, I am an expert.” Hey, good for you. The review is fantastic because it goes into more detail (and evidence) than any other review posted on this game. That it is rude, well it’s codex, so thems the breaks. Bethesda will first have to make a good RPG before people at RPGCodex are nice to them.

New Vegas was panned for bugs (which were also Bethesda’s fault, not Obsidian’s), its RPG aspects and writing were and still are praised.

New Vegas was unfairly slammed for the same bugs that Fallout 3 had but people ignored out of devotion to the developer.

I agree with your conclusion though. The market does not want story based rpgs. It wants light, open world rpgs and shooters, preferably in the same package.

Witcher 3, one of the most story heavy AAA RPGs ever made, sold almost 10 million copies in less than a year. I would argue there is a sizeable audience for story based RPGs.
And it’s not like Fallout 4 would sell any less copies if it had good writing and quest design. The game sold greatly because of its name and Bethesda’s brand and it would sell the same or more, even if most of the quests didn’t devolve into fetching/killing.

30 page review and what was the point!? I almost feel sorry for the reviewer. The entire premise was based on a faulty assumption… That the qualities of a story based crpg were at all relevant to this game. May as well have reviewed it as a flight simulator…

It was marketed as an RPG and it is a fourth mainline game in one of the most revered classic RPG franchises.

How can a ranting diatribe maintain its credibility with a click bait headline like that?

Welcome to the concept of sarcasm.

[zx81-Amd64]

I also find it extremely interesting that you firmly believe that because perfection in something can’t be attained, one shouldn’t even bother trying.

Strange, it’s all very strange.

Don’t let me stop your twos head butting here, and i have no skin in that race at all, your all cool dudes from my seat; but this is such a good truth that i often find the gaming world nearly always slips up on 99% of the time. It is why my list of best games, and the games i play the most sort of fall into the 1% exception area of game making. I’ll take ambition (even if flawed) and passion from my game devs over cold market share calculations any day of the gaming week. Those guys, and the games that come out of it, are why i’m still a gamer after +20 years.

[KristiGaines]

Hmm well --maybe I am just a sucker for Bethesda’s “banality” (is that a good word that overly generalizes the criticism of this game?), but you know, I am really enjoying the darn heck out of this game right now! The new survival beta is just jaw-dropping difficult in so many ways and changes the very nature of how you play. The game itself is beautiful --mostly – and runs smooth as silk.

I waited until March to start playing it at the release of the survival beta and I am glad I did. I should point out that waiting 5 months for a Bethesda release OR a total war release (at least) is just a LOT better than jumping in on opening day.

I am still not sure I grasp what the problem with this game is --or, for that matter, the marked difference in Fallout 4 and any other Bethesda open world game. It is certainly better -imhop–then Oblivion.

And anyways how is shooting mole rats not fun? I must be a simpleton or something.

[Telefrog]

And anyways how is shooting mole rats not fun? I must be a simpleton or something.

Nah. You enjoy what you enjoy. I like it too. Sneaking around, shooting raiders, exploring the nooks and crannies of post-apocalyptic Boston, it’s all good.

I totally understand why it bounced off some people though. No two ways about it, the writing is terrible. The physical setting and lore are inconsistent. The dialogue options are utterly pointless.

[TheWombat]

As someone who made his living writing and editing, and in particular as an academic who makes his living on communication of information, you should understand the idea of subjectivity in writing (both in the creation and consumption of it). That you don’t, and instead seem to believe that there are universal truths in writing no matter the audience, the medium or the environmental context - makes me curious just quite how you have successfully made such a living.

This is an article on the codex, by a codex member, for other codex members. Despite this, you have the desperately misguided view that it should be written in the form and style of an article targeted at you, and hypothetical/imagined third parties who a) don’t visit the codex and b) never will.

I also find it extremely interesting that you firmly believe that because perfection in something can’t be attained, one shouldn’t even bother trying.

Strange, it’s all very strange.

It’s written in a public place, as a review, for an audience that is not gated. Sure, you can argue that it’s written for Codex members and thus it’s fine to cater to their tastes. But it’s still crap. Yes, I do subscribe to the idea that in written communication there are certain basic standards, and yes, I still maintain this review doesn’t meet these standards in most respects. Condescension, arrogance, and belittling opposing views can be entertaining, but this piece was not. The writer doesn’t have the chops to pull off what was clearly intended. It’s neither satirical, nor incisive, nor witty. It’s just petulant.

As far as perfection goes, of course one should try. But there’s a reason why engineers talk of having it good, fast, or cheap, pick any two. The same logic works for gaming. Could you make a game with all the RPG-goodness the Codex folks want? Sure. Could you also make it a good shooter and give it AAA graphics? And sell it for sixty clams? Um, I kind of doubt it, but it’d be nice to have, sort of like a full-on Porsche for twenty grand new would be cool.

Finally, I’ve been able to make a living because, well, when you sell words, either in print, online, in commercial products, or in the classroom, there are indeed standards, and people have expectations that are not there when stuff is done for free. So, yes, writing is subjective in some cases, but when it comes to communicating for money, people don’t pay for the sort of thing that we’re discussing. Usually; there’s no accounting for taste I suppose.

It would make a kick-ass forum post, though. Just don’t pass it off as an actual composed review.

[TheWombat]

“Trust me, I am an expert.” Hey, good for you. The review is fantastic because it goes into more detail (and evidence) than any other review posted on this game. That it is rude, well it’s codex, so thems the breaks. Bethesda will first have to make a good RPG before people at RPGCodex are nice to them.

New Vegas was panned for bugs (which were also Bethesda’s fault, not Obsidian’s), its RPG aspects and writing were and still are praised.

Witcher 3, one of the most story heavy AAA RPGs ever made, sold almost 10 million copies in less than a year. I would argue there is a sizeable audience for story based RPGs.
And it’s not like Fallout 4 would sell any less copies if it had good writing and quest design. The game sold greatly because of its name and Bethesda’s brand and it would sell the same or more, even if most of the quests didn’t devolve into fetching/killing.

It was marketed as an RPG and it is a fourth mainline game in one of the most revered classic RPG franchises.

Welcome to the concept of sarcasm.

To start with the bottom bit, that’s one of the problems with the review. The sarcasm falls flat because the writer can’t pull it off. And no, I’m not an expert, at anything. I’m just saying that from my perspective, informed by my experience, I think this review is terrible as a review even though its points are accurate. I don’t agree that having more information or detail is always a good thing. But again, we can differ on that.

[Paul_cze]

Alright, you think the review is terrible because… it doesn’t conform to your personal journalistic standards of politeness ? Good to know.
Meanwhile I am going to keep hoping to see similarly detailed, evidenced based analyses in professional review outlets. Even if they keep the sarcasm and rudeness out.

(I realize that hope is futile, no professional journalist is ever going to do this much work for a review)