It never even occurred to me to compare Fallout 4 to Skyrim. Maybe that is a good place for OP or anyone to start? Consider that, its an apples to oranges comparison and why would you compare the two?

Would you compare the fun of shooting an RPG-9 to the experience of drinking your morning coffee? Both might be fun, but they are just totally different. Not saying Fallout 4 and Skyrim are _that_ far apart but they are quite a distance along that continuum.

As far as, loving and criticizing, my only beef with some people's opinions is that they are ill-informed and locked up. Just as an example, someone starts a thread saying "There is not enough content," and claims to have "finished" the game in ~50 hours. Moreover, when people try to examine their claim with queries about the specifics of their playstyle and/or suggestions on what they might do differently to get more mileage out of the game, this sort of forum user (and there have been at least a couple dozen if not scores over the 10 weeks or so) then becomes defensive, passive-aggressive, and argumentative, and begins accusing those who try to interact rationally of being 'overly devoted fans' or 'corporate stooges' or whatever. Any thread that is either titled with a blanket statement of praise or criticism is likely either playing on, or playing to this dynamic that has been so common on these boards since the game was released.

I suspect that many might think of me as some sort of 'defender' of the game, but if you actually read what I write, I have expressed many criticisms of the game. It has many deficiencies and some quite nagging flaws. But then again so does a brand-new Mercedes Benz. So does every masterpiece, except perhaps those which are so specialized that their functionality is easy to perfect.

. . . I wouldn't bother to prattle on about this, except that I see this same trend as being fairly predominant across global culture today: polarization, hyperbole, exaggeration, partisanship, opinion in the absence of critical thinking, dogmatic if not self-serving views . . . no doubt these have always been a part of human experience, but I fear their 'fashionability' and frequency have increased measurably in my lifetime and it is a trend I find unsettling. Even Universities themselves are guilty of it, indeed, some have claimed they are engulfed in a wave of dogmatic indoctrination that is totally at odds with the traditional them of the liberal arts education, which is to promote critical thinking and good general knowledge base.

I think, from what I have seen, the criticisms of FO4 when compared to Skyrim tend to be about relevant topics.

For example:

I think thats a fair comparison. Battlebloodmage is not saying 'Meh, I like axes and dragons more' but rather commenting on FO4's approach to fetch quest designs. The point about finding shouts and wanting to go deep into those dungeons is valid, FO does not have that gold nugget the really draws you into exploring its many areas.

Now personally I disagree with that comment about purpose, just because I love all the terminal entries and the little stories thrown around all over the place, but thats a personal feeling and I can see why someone wants something a little more cool than Tessa's Fist when they've gone ahead and explored Quincy (definately not an equivalent to a cool new shout).

Just because they are set in different time periods doesnt make all comparisons invalid. Its like whenever someone brings up the Witcher and someone immediately jumps in and claims that they are COMPLETELY different games. That might be true but it doesnt mean Bethesda cant learn a thing or two from CDProjektRed. If FO4 had that landscape changing element associated with some of the Witcher quests your decisions will feel so much more weighted and interesting, thats a valid learning point for Bethesda, and I'd find it hard to believe that RPG fans wouldnt appreciate elements like these in the Fallout games.

Agree Bloodbattlemages post is a good example of well-informed, and well-expressed criticism, even if I don't necessarily agree. I'd say the same thing about the OP of this thread. The point was, the OP did a little "play on the theme" when he/she put the incongruous title on the thread

I would have to admit that my "apples to oranges" argument was more a "Devil's Advocate" position, as I do agree they can be compared as "games;" but it is nonetheless true, I had not myself spontaneously done any comparisons that I can think of.

I did not start playing FO4 with Skyrim in mind or with expectations taken from Skyrim. Perhaps I was reflecting on FO3 or even FONV to some extent (though I find FONV much less memorable so probably less automatic comparison than to FO3), but even there, I was not "comparing them," in the same way that so many seem hell-bent to do.

A game should be judged primarily by its own internal standards, and its merit assessed in those terms. Any external comparisons should be ancillary, despite the fact that there is some market competition between the products; I seriously doubt that the market dynamics are anything like Pepsi vs. Coke or Delta vs. American or any other famous "consumer products 'Wars.'"

If you are a gamer, you generally do not HAVE to choose which games you will buy and enjoy and be a fan of; you can if you want, buy most of them.

ADDIT: now as far as the specific point BattleBloodMage is making "the lack of fetch design quests, and the lack of interest in exploring in FO4" I'm different. I spent the first couple hundred hours of Skyrim just in the immediate environs of Whitewater. I only played it vanilla for about 100 hours tops? and found the game so . . . lacking in so many respects, that I eagerly began installing mods, indeed _desperately_ so. I was on one hand loving the game to death, it IS more beguiling than FO4, but on the other, so aggravated by things like the UI, followers, etc. that I felt I HAD to get some mods to "fix it." I was lucky to have waited about a year or more after it was released so I pretty much skipped any of the hubbub about the early game already had acdess to most if not all DLC as well as lots of good mods.

FO4, I bought about 2 days after release and I was glued to it for weeks on end, VANILLA! I honestly didn't expect that at all, and I didn't install a single mod until well past 350 hours of play. Even now, the mods I have installed I could just jettison and be fine to continue playing it vanilla. I have no less drive to explore FO4 as I did Skyrim in fact I'd say I have more. I did find the "main quest pointers" that start the game mildly annoying, but I played along the first time or two. Now I basically just ignore the whole thing and do whatever I want. But then again, I had Arthmoor's Alternate Start: Live Another Life mod installed within less than 100 hours of playing Skyrim so that "main quest pointers to get you going" dynamic in Skyrim was no better than the one in FO4 really.

I sort of disagree with this point here. I've heard a lot of comments recently with the same theme; 'Fallout 4 is a great game, but a poor Fallout' and this idea comes as a result of playing past games. Personally I think this comment is somewhat true. Its my opinion that studios should endeveour to take features forwards and expand on them, not get rid of integral elements of the past series games. They should innovate on their past and be ambitious with their projects.

Take the heated debates surrounding the new dialogue system and the lack of perceived choices and the roleplay elements in general in FO4. Arguably the new system is a result of Bethesda streamlining the game, and possibly attempting to cater to a larger audience, but when past games have given you varied interesting outcomes to your choices (remember Dave's Republic, Harold and Bob, Entry to Little Lamplight, Power of the Atom, Tenpenny Tower (quest), The Replicated Man, and Superhuman Gambit) the flaws in FO4 approach to quest designs and general ambition on Bethesda's part begin to show. Unless the playerbase calls them out then this trend in their approach to game design MIGHT continue.

You can also see this when looking at several gameplay elements from New Vegas that where dropped and would probably make the game considerably more enjoyable. Namely its the way factions react around you through the rep system, as well as them reacting according to what you are wearing, and the variations in gangs instead of generic raider groups. FO4 would have been so much more exciting with those two elements in the game, Bethesda should have worked them in and innovated them further.

Its also important to note that the best games tend to be ones that take on ideas from other games. Remaining in isolation would otherwise have resulted in shooters still holding to the old school 90's Unreal Tournamet/Quake/Doom style of gameplay (arguably still fun, but outdated), and as such it is important to make comparisons with other games.

Heck you can see Fallout have adopted this by really updating their base-game mechanics (introducing a sprint function really has made it difficult to go back and play the past games without it), introducing settlement construction (I think I remember watching an interview where Todd and the Minecraft creator discussed a few topics together, and Todd expressed his love of minecraft which probably led to the system we have now), reworking their crafting systems, etc. Without the external influence Fallout would probably be in a much poorer state than it is now. Arguably the person who should be making the comparison is the devs themselves, not us, but voicing our opinions couldnt hurt

Arguably I'm just over the top.

I also think that, to an extent (IMO), the NPC voices are better in FO4. Sure, you do still hear the same voice actors across several different characters, but it felt more obvious in Skyrim for some reason (idk, maybe it was something to do with the strong accents? Not that Skyrim had bad voice acting, though). And many NPC interactions (the "cinematic" conversations) feel more rounded in a way in FO4, but I wonder if having a voiced PC plays into that a bit. (I guess I need to go back and play Skyrim again so I can remember things! I do like both games equally, for their own different reasons. )

In principle, I agree with much of what you are saying Mistro. But in practice, I think that profit trumps all such concerns. In fact it must. Bankrupt but innovative studios that made brilliant but "niche" games are not going to be around to innovate for long.

I have mixed and not strong feelings when it comes to arguments about "features that were in previous games in the universe and which have been deprecated." In the first place, I think all of this ultimately depends on user opinion. On top of that, some of the things you refer to were apparently "broken" and never fixed (e.g., the rep system in New Vegas). If I have a choice between an clever and complicated system that is intended to reflect real world social dynamics, but is basically broken because it resets unpredictably (and thus your built up rep with different factions gets reset) and a simple and clear system that works flawlessly but is "streamlined" and thus less "immersive" . . . hmm not a hard choice to me.

I agree that "the best games" are innovative. But they are not 100% innovative I think. I vaguely recall Sid Meiers or one of his colleagues (Sorenson maybe) saying the rule they was something like a rule of 3rds? Keep one-third of the game design identical to the predecessor, 1/3 totally innovative, and the last third I cannot recall. I might be butchering the details but the basic point of it was 'Don't try to go from steam engine to battlestar galactica in one step. You might be able to jump over two or three steps, but you cannot leave behind everything on which your new design is based too quickly or there will be a disconnect.'

Of course. Even some of my favorite movies of all time have things, even little things, that I can nitpick about, but it doesn't diminish the enjoyability of the overall film (though I will admit that there are about...two films I can name where it is INCREDIBLY hard to find anything I dislike about them. That is VERY rare).

I guess there is difference between giving a balanced critique (or forum post) where you point out the pros and cons together, and flat-out saying "this is the greatest video game/movie of the year, but....here are dozens of issues I have with it, with nothing else added to back up why I think it is the greatest video game/movie of the year". I think that might be where some of the critique of this forum topic is coming from.

That's great. Now why exactly is Fallout 4 the greatest game you've ever played? Seems you've completely failed to mention that.

I am glad you enjoy it OP. And I am sure Bethesda appreciates your constructive criticism. I am in the same boat. I love it, and have constructive criticism about it as well.

Anyways, keep having fun

Well if you use tcl and player.sav to increase your speed you can see that the base terrain is over 10 times larger than what you can explore otherwise.


I would like them to do that as well

I think that some people need to keep in mind that Todd already stated, even stressed, that their intention was/is to keep adding stuff to the base game via both patches and DLC.

As with any intention, this may not happen or it may not happen as frequently or as completely as he and his team would like, but that was/is still their intention, anyway.

FO4 has an enormous amount of content and mechanics already. In contrast, Skyrim was/is woefully lacking even after the last DLC dropped. Mods fix some of the issues of any BGS game, but even they have limits.

Edit:

I need to add one more note re: Battlemage's assertions about exploring between FO4 and Skyrim.

The fact is that the two games are opposite from what Battlemage claims. That is, in Skyrim, the failure of the game is that it does not include any sort of reasonable reward for character efforts. This is particularly true for archers and mage characters who suffer an enormous bias against them due to extremely poor game mechanics. This was something that was complained about by players and FO4's system is BGS' answer to these complaints. Where Skyrim offers players no reason for any characters to risk their lives attempting to explore or do anything else other than stay in a protected area and craft the most powerful stuff in the game, FO4 offers players reasonable rewards for exploring the world, completing quests, etc as there is no way that characters will be able to acquire the best stuff in the game without doing these things with the consequent risk to life and limb. Mods might fix some of that in Skyrim, but FO4 already has it fixed in the vanilla game. Shouts in Skyrim are most certainly not a reasonable reward as they often have nothing to do with any particular character (just as the various equipment doesn't for example). In FO4, any area has rewards for any type of character, including the empowering of a character to craft their own reward customized to what they need.

LoooL at the "Skyrim lacking". Well since we already have Gun/Armor/Utility/Crafting mods without the GECK, let alone the amount we will get after the GECK; i am expecting the DLC to be somewhat big in content.

FACT? Get over yourself. It's your opinion and nothing more. It's the opposite. In Skyrim the best "Rewards/Weapons/Armor" were in the end of dungeons/forts/caves, while in FO4 the best "Weapons/Armor" are on legendary enemies. Reasonable rewards? In FO4? REALLY? I kill a Legendary Deathclaw and i get a legendary walking stick? Wow what an awesome reward for my sniper character. Or do you mean all the settlers in FO4 who want you to clear areas infested with ghouls for free? Come on now. FO4 CRAFT? It's modding. I can't craft a heavy combat chest piece. I have to level up, and then wait and search to find it on an enemy. The RNG loot in F4 is broken if you want something specific. To find a weapon or armor that you want and THEN find the legendary effect you want is boring and tedious. Both games have their flaws, but your "Facts" are your opinions.

I suppose it discourages farming though.

Can you elaborate? Not sure what you meant.

The sentence I bolded/underlined is something I wish was possible in FO4, where you can make anything from scratch as long as you had the materials and the level. Wouldn't it make sense for the Armorsmith, Gunslinger, Rifleman, etc. perks to allow you to create each rank of armor/weapon? Well, that was how it was in Skyrim, but I don't see a reason why our FO4 character can't make things from scratch. That would have been more of a challenge in some respects, but it is annoying having to wait to be the right level to get the type of combat armor, for example, you want, and then make sure you've killed an enemy guaranteed to be wearing it.

But, yeah...it gets a little pointless to compare FO4 and Skyrim to each other in such extreme ways. Whether one is "bad" or not is up to personal preference.

In many of the games I play, there are certain, leveled drops for bosses and containers for resources or items based on your character class or where you've chosen to perk yourself so you end up going back again and again and again to the same place to farm the same boss and our container to get the items you desire. This was particularly true in games like ESO or Dragon's Dogma. For me, it just got to be a tiring obligation after a while.

While I'm not thrilled that I'm still getting unmodded 10mm in nearly every chest, safe or box I run in to in F4, I suppose it makes sense that everything wouldn't have leveled along with you, especially if you're in an area far below your level.

As someone else pointed out, F4 bases it's item levels on geographic area rather than character level, I would guess to discourage farming?

It was just a thought. Sorry if it bothered you.

But I thought you could mod whatever you needed if you have the right perks. Am I wrong? I've been modding my Light combat armor to polymer and deep pockets as well as IV Ballistic Weave since I got the perks up in Science and Smithing at about level 18 or so. As long as I had the raw materials, that is.

Am I wrong?

shes not talking about modding but crafting

for the "ive been modding my light combat armour....................." shes saying she wishes she could actually make combat armour not just mod it.

Why? It's the same thing.

Even in Skyrim, why would I make ebony armor when I can just improve and enchant what I find. It's just a waste of resources.

While i am interested in Dragons dogma i'm not quite familiar with the drop systems. Skyrim gave you the option to craft a lot of armors/upgrade and enchant it, again with a lot of options. While i don't have an issue with Legendary enemies, i actually like them, but i hate the way Legendary loot is managed. I have 3 characters, and i always get the loot i want but with the wrong character. Maybe Beth is planning some legendary crafting in the upcoming DLC. What i really don't understand is why Beth didn't put Legendary gear in safes/terminal locked places. It kinda kills the immersion when picking a lock or a hacking a terminal knowing that the best loot is on legendary enemies.

It's not really same. 2 things are different. Look of the armor and Stats. The Heavy version has the best stats, then the sturdy, and then the regular. As for looks, some pieces just look better, so in order to get how you want to look you usually have to wait and level up.

I'm referring to how, with combat armor as the example, you have the three tiers as the "base" armor before modding: the normal, sturdy, and heavy, each being progressively better (though the bulky shoulders on heavy look awkward). What I'm saying is that it would be nice to be able to make the heavy combat armor as opposed to waiting to kill an enemy who is wearing it. I know that the different tiers are designated by level zone on the map, but of course some armor types are easier to find than others (leather being the most common, I've found, especially with Raiders being the most populous enemy type).

Self made Armor had better Basic Stats. With some Smithing Entchanting Clothes it had much better Values as random Drop Parts, and ofcourse the feeling you made it by your own. That made it unique. I was just a Conjurer but in the End i liked to make my own Armor. I dont have that feeling at all in Fallout 4. Even Power Armor, you will find Pieces or Full Sets every 200 meters.

Skyrim had an Craftign System, Fallout 4 has just a Moddign System. You cant even make Pipe Pistols or Raider Power Armor Parts. I would like to see this

no its not the same thing

to mod the combat armour you need to already have a piece, as in if you dont have it you cant

crafting the piece allows you to "have it" before you find it

fallout 4 same as skyrim resources are everywhere just in FO4 far far far more, absolutely everywhere. you are never wasting resources because that is what they are for

also we now have settlers we can arm/armour so if you want to do so in a specific way its much easier and faster if you can make the peices rather than having to find them

also we play games differently ofcourse, in skyrim my smithing skill was always way above my level such that i could make certain arms/armour well well weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllll before i was finding them.