Maybe that's part of the problem, If you look at the Elder Scrolls series each game while sharing the underlying principle, goes to pains to be distinct in setting, style, story and ... erm trying to think of an s word that fits, let's go with systems Sillyness (did it again) not withstanding my point is that Fallout 4 is very similar in all those ways to fallout 3, in fact the key differences, other than general improvement in graphics (while retaining the same basic appearance) and gun play (and the settlement feature), are all negative (for me), simplified or removed systems, the dialogue system, voiced protagonist, etc. There's just not that much that feels that new in Fallout 4 and what is new isn't always welcome.

Hate to say this, but, FO4 is not FO3, and it was never meant to be another FO3 or like FO3. What you said above seems to be the problem with a portion of the player base, caused by their expectations (or desire) that a new game will be just like an old game in the series.

I've been playing FO games for a very long time now, and for me FO4 is well beyond being more fun than previous titles. FO3 is not a gold standard by any stretch.

Water purifier retrieval duty. Got it

FO3 is the only Bethesda game and the only Fallout game where I still haven't completed the MQ.

So far I am enjoying FO4 vastly more than FO3. I can see some problems with future playthroughs, if I don't want to play Nate or Nora the game doesn't really allow for that.

This sort of argument is something I've seen many times over the past decade or two. My preference of older games in general isn't just a product of a failing memory or rose tinted glasses. When I say I prefer, for example, the original type of Resident Evil, Final Fantasy or even Sonic I'm not joking around - I could literally fire them up on my PC or old consoles and thoroughly enjoy them. In fact I regularly do.


What I can't understand is why I, to this day, can still get a whole lot of enjoyment from Fallout 3 and even Oblivion far easier than I can with F4. I find myself playing in hope that one day everything will click and I can enjoy F4 like those others. I have every intention to love F4 as much, I don't dislike the game, it just doesn't seem to be clicking with me for some reason I can't fathom. Yeah, F4 removed a few things, but I was never fond of weapon degradation or the low level cap while the skill points system wasn't vital to me either seeing as how I always wind up following the same build path because of the level cap.


And on paper every returning element is better than before. That should mean I should prefer F4, yet there's some secret spice thrown into F3 that makes the game much more enjoyable, and whatever it is it's what Fallout 4 is lacking.

I think that the major flaw with fallout 4 is that is was designed to be a more accessible game. Anyone from age 10-102 can pick it up and play it.

Well, I personally can't get more enjoyment out of Oblivion and FO3. Too many moon faced NPCs, too many generic looking dungeons/Oblviion planes, too many Terminator vs Terminator battles where everyone runs around in the open shooting at each other lol.

What can I say, damn Bethesda, they made another lame main story and poor melee mechanic video game once again, that I again sank hundreds of hours already into playing!

You're right - which is why I'm confused. I can readily admit those older games have real problems and are very dated, yet that doesn't stop me enjoying them. Perhaps I first played them during a time in my life where I was very receptive to things like those. As I know them well and I'm already on their level I'll continue to enjoy them the same way forever, meanwhile Fallout 4 might seem less interesting maybe because I haven't yet invested literally years into getting to know it inside out.


New content should be inherently interesting, and it is to a point. But familiarity is a good thing to have too. When I last played Fallout 3 I enjoyed it at least partially because I know the Capital Wasteland and it's inhabitants like my own back yard. Perhaps certain detail needs several years to truly come into focus. Until then Boston just looks like a drab and uninteresting setting - which is probably because "post apocalyptic wastes" isn't as unique today as it was when Fallout 3 launched, and because of that F3 was a more positive experience from the outset so seeing the true character behind all that came naturally. I feel like I'm forcing myself to do the same with F4, yet it's frustrating as I said earlier - I'm sure when that missing piece clicks into place I'll love F4 maybe more than F3, but it's a bit of a struggle until that happens.

I have over 250 hours of play and loved it at first. But the repetitive missions, some truly odd/out of place missions, and the underwhelming ending leave me a bit cold. Probably the most enjoyable parts have been using it as a sandbox, just wandering around, finding new locations and enemies and objects. Don't get me wrong, I think this game is a fantastic achievement and at times you just have to stop and marvel at it. But I don't think the story line is as good as it could have been.

If you are going to criticize Fallout 4 for it's stories and characters, then you best find something other than Fallout 3 to compare it to. God, that game even by Bethesda standards has one of the most nonsensical and terrible plot lines, matched only by some of Skyrim's guilds in terribleness. There also wasn't any interesting or good npcs in Fallout 3 other than Three Dog.

I would say that Obsidian did the main characters the best hands down. Maxson, Desdamona, Father and Preston are stale bread compared to the likes of Mr House, Caesar, Lanius, or even Yes Man.

However I still think the average joe character in Fallout 4 is more interesting than in New Vegas. Can't really recall much memorable or interesting normal npcs in New Vegas other than Fisto.

With companions it depends, although I think New Vegas has the slight edge here given that Preston kinda ruins everything. Unlike most people I found Boone to be cliche and boring. Raul may not be a good fighter,but for some reason he is the most interesting companion in New Vegas for me. There is just something about a being snarky and Sarcastic Mexican Ghoul that made him so enjoyable for me.

It's difficult to verbalize exactly what is missing from FO4, but I think that it has been over-simplified: the dialog, the absence of a skill system, even the SPECIALs have minimal or no real effect except to enable you to access perks, few established settlements, repeating quests, etc. Or as Wasteland Undertaker said, it's more accessible. I do like the combat system, the graphics.

And yes, for me, FO3 did have a good story and depth to the characters. Some may think the story silly, but I think of the characters as having personality and many were eccentric. You got to know them usually through the missions -- such as that crazy chick Moira sending you out for missions so she could write her book. There were more established settlements in FO3 and characters to interact with and deeper dialog.

As many others have said, I still enjoy going back to play FO3. Now FO4 isn't a terrible game. It's ok -- just ok. Not a memorable game and probably not one that I'll keep going back to as I do most of the other Bethesda games. Sales for FO4 have been really great, so obviously it appeals to many players. Which will only serve to encourage Bethesda to continue down this path -- and that's what really concerns me.

Sales mean nothing... except maybe that Fallout 3 and Skyrim did well enough to hype people for this. Fallout 4 has really yet to prove it's own two legs. How many people stopped playing within the first month? I have a feeling that DLC sales will be the biggest indicator of what people generally thought of FO4, bolstered of course by all the Season Passes bought before anyone even played the game or read a review.

FO is making Bethesda a ****load of money.

Its not only the FO4 game itself (and its DLC), I would not be surprised if all the "ancillary" stuff, like the merchandising + mobile gaming + licensing, etc., $ > FO4 + DLC sales.

Ahem, I would not be surprised if the execs at Bethy consider FO their flagship franchise, even over TES. Who would have thunkit? lol. Kind of interesting to think of the implications of this sea change.

Data anolytics is your friend. If a game sells 12 million, and has terrible or mediocre user reviews. It means Bethesda has lost potential customers.


On Steam, it has favorable reviews, but then you have to read the reviews. Lots of complaints with this game.

Considering how the Season Pass was Steam's top selling game for nearly a week after the DLC announcement, I think a fair number, including me, already have purchased the DLCs through the Season Pass. I'm also not aware of any merchandising or mobile gaming or licensing involving Fallout 4. Fallout 4 has been the best base Fallout game I've played without mods. Once the GECK is released next month, I think the game will really take off then. There seems to be a lot more functionality for modders and the DLCs will add to that. I have no doubt that this will be considered the best of the Fallout 3/Fallout NV/Fallout 4 games in a year.

Uggh, bunch of angry old 2D isomorphic FO1-2 fans bitterly complaining about technological advancement to a 3D FPS/RPG environment at Metacritic, like an angry old man returning soup at a deli? Very ungood metrics, should be ignored.

What cannot be ignored is that nuka-cola sells at hundreds of IRL $$$s on Ebay

True, but popularity of Fallout as a whole doesn't mean the changes in FO4 were well recieved, thus there's no reason to worry just yet that the series will get more and more "disappointing" with each installment. People bought Fallout 4 day one because Skyrim and Fallout 3 were huge games that were far from disappointing. People were hyped to the max, and I think this is the first major Bethesda game of recent memory that wasn't way better than we expected.


Fallout Shelter is it's own thing. Folks won't just stop playing FS just because F4 bored them or whatnot - we won't see how this game truly affected consumer confidence until TESVI (which still has Skyrim driving the hype train) or Fallout 5. Until then DLC sales will provide a kind of clue how many of those initial buyers haven't already given up and gone elsewhere. Unless you bought the Season Pass early, why pay more for new content in a game you haven't touched in four months?


If DLC sells exceptionally well, it will reinforce the belief that the base game is indeed headed in the right direction, but it's too early to say yet.

Yes - you can't say the game disappointed you unless you bought it, so the sheer volume of units sold cannot by definition translate into percentage of happy customers.


Going to extremes here, but if the latest installment of any AAA franchise turned out to be a turd, that turd would sell just as well as a game of the usual high standard due to the powers of hype and expectation alone. It's the following installment that suffers, as hype is diminished and people start to fear another turd.

Agreed, the popularity of FO was defo started way before even Bethy bought FO franchise. Heck, Bethy were smart enough to recognize the value of the franchise and brand and to turn it into probably the most lucrative franchise in gaming (maybe competing with GTA?).

But trust me, FO merchandising is another factor you are not considering. To quote Yogurt from from Spaceballs "Merchandising, Merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made!" Substitute movie with game of course.

That's not relevant here. Fallout as a successful franchise is a known. The issue is whether disappointment in F4, coupled with sales volume for F4 could indicate future games will head in the same disappointing direction. All you've raised here is that the franchise has enough steam to power on through the odd disappointing release. But the mothership games are vital, and if F4 and F5 disappoint too many people merchandising potential will dry up in a flash. Bethesda needs to listen to feedback, figure out why some of us are disappointed, then approach F5 with the solution in mind otherwise Fallout will lose all but the most loyal fans who've been around since the Interplay years.

Unfortunately, the next Fallout title is a long, LONG ways off.

What I'm trying to tell you is there is absolutely no dissapointment in FO4, as far as Bethy is concerned. It's an astounding financial success for them, its a franchise the generates for them huge amounts of revenue through various streams of income.

Do I have to state this again, I am fairly certain Bethy execs now consider FO their flagship franchise, even over Elder Scrolls! Lulz, that's crazy, but true.

Considering Fallout their flagship franchise is neither here nor there. The franchise is only popular today thanks to Fallouts 1-3, New Vegas and Skyrim. Skyrim isn't a Fallout, but can nontheless be held partially responsible for the strong sales of F4.


What you seem to be implying is Bethesda could have shipped a blank disc in the box and still sold as well, which is definitely true because the majority of sales decisions were made between the first trailer and anyone actually having played the game in public if we ignore legal implications for a moment. In other words, based on trust and hype alone the game generated 12M sales. And you seem to be saying that sales of 12M automatically mean the game has done well, meaning they can do the same for F5... except what idiot would fall for the blank disc trick twice on the trot? Sure, F4 will have "done well" but how on earth will F5 with expectations shattered like that?


The above sounds rediculous because it's exaggerated. Replace "blank disc" with "disappointing end product" and you have something approaching reality.

Oh come on now lol. It's the same doomsday 'ruined my franchise!' nonesense that's arguably been going on since Morrowind. Give it a few years, most unhappy people will have moved on, and ES 5 and FO 6 will sell just as well if not better.

i like fallout 4 way better, bethesdas makes great game, fallout 4 was super well received, it had more people playing it on steam one week then any other game ever, it broke steam sales records, its blowing away a lot of games as far as sales go, its plenty good, i like it way better than NV and fallout 3 or skyrim, its being played a lot and with the dlc coming out the next year, its still going, to say the series it going down and down, lol no its not, its just not the type of game for you, most people like the varied locations, tactical combat, tons of dungeons to battle and explore, i like building settlements, in a big open world sandbox type of game, its not gonna have a super deep story, when you have real deep stories its a tradeoff, not many game can do everything great, its like squeezing a water balloon, one area gets small the other gets big, so if they spent all their time writing and dialogue etc, then the game world itself suffers and you have a map like NV where 90% of the locations svck, they're a small shack or trashpile, a couple tents, NV had good writing but the map was bland, super empty, no good locations to battle enemies or explore, the map didn't lend itself to combat, it wasn't tactical, no places to hide, no nooks and crannies, like buildings you can go in and out of, very very limited, i don't want that type of map, i prefer more time spent on the actual physical locations and world developing over them spending all their time writing dialogue, a game cannot do it all, games that do have great location and deeper stories like deus ex or bio shock aren't open world sanbox games, they're great games and replayable but there's not nearly as much over all content, no even close, 1/100 of the content.