>The company famous of entirely changing how their game plays mechanics has been offering the same experience since 2006.

If that was true, we wouldn't see all the hate of people saying the game experience is entirely changes literally every new Bethesda release.

So basically your main complaint about Bethesda is that they aren't Black Isle.

Unfortunately there will never be another Fallout game like Fallout 1/2. Bethesda owns the franchise now, and like it or not, their alterations have made Fallout wildly more popular than it ever was before they got a hold of it.

I will as I've done with Skyrim. Unrealistic expectaions?! Skyrim was DESIGNED FOR the 360 and ps3. It wasn't a next gen title down ported, it was just a crappy optimization job.

Also calling me a "fan boy" obviously you don't anything about me or what I post on these forums.

Sandboxes is all about messing around in an open world and doing whatever you want with it, or within it... The Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, and Fallout New Vegas are NOTHING like that. Yes, you have the freedom to do what you want in the world but it isn't necessary 'sandbox freedom' where the world is basically yours to screw with it or within.

I strongly disagreed. Yes, there are similarities between them all plus the main core piece. But each games plays through quite different (discounting New Vegas being similar to Fallout 3). Heck, they are so different that people can easily have personal favorites between them all and that people can prove which one is better than the others (at least being better at what it is meant to do, so to speak).

Going by your logic, every game would feel a lot like Oblivion and svck as bad as Oblivion...

This is true. I recently tried to play Morrowind again and I was friggin lost. I hadn't played since like 2004. Huge difference between Morrowind and Skyrim.

Lol, no worries friend. Get some shut eye .

I can see that when going from Morrowind to Oblivion where the core gameplay actually did change (although not so much the intended experience), but after that... It's an overstatement to say "entirely change".


No. My main complaint is that they're doing Fallout games that only have a slight visual and thematic resemblance.


I know. But there could (just could) be one that's closer than the current TES iteration of the series.

Yeah I enjoyed brewing my own potions, collecting herbs, getting skillpoints for my agillity after walking a while and acrobatics after some jumps in FO3.

Ooops...

Btw. only a few examples.

Come on be fair and say what it is really about. It's about FO4 as a recycled FO1 in the end. Which won't work too because it's not the mindset of Bethesda and not even Obsidian wanted to go that route (yes they could have made something different which is more near the originals, even with the focus on a big city).

I tend to agree with UnDeCafideed and Gizmo, but this seems ridiculous. There are several other threads in which we've collectively lamented the huge changes to RPG mechanics and dialogue from Fallout 3. Oftentimes much is made of how this is going to change the Fallout experience drastically, so coming onto this thread and claiming the exact opposite is the height of hypocrisy. Aside from that we have much improved graphics, completely new shooting mechanics, building capabilities, and what seems like some of the deepest weapon customization of all time. I really can't think of any other company that makes such a shift from title to title.

TL;DR

> Brand new shooting

> Core RPG mechanics completely changed

> Dialogue system completely changed

> Building and weapons customization

> Voiced PC

= Recycled game??????

While this is true, the fact that some folks need comparison shots highlights the problem.A problem that people never had with Morrowind to Oblivion or from Oblivion to Skyrim.

I'm ultimately indifferent to good graphics, but Fallout 4 is probably about average (possibly below) in the greater context of gaming in this aspect.Games like the Witcher 3 comprehensively stomp Fallout 4 into the ground, I've lost so much time just ogling the landscape as the sun coruscates across mountains and through trees.

ikr

It's like a brand new game. The art direction looks similar but everything else is vastly different.

I have say give them credit for somehow making the same game over and over yet somehow make a game completely change it at the same time.

It's pretty unfair to even compare the two. It's like Comparing Fallout 4 to Crysis 3.

Why do you need them? Because some people are blind (and actually love to complain about anything on the net) it is suddenly a fact? Sorry not a good argument.

Also suddenly graphics matters again. Interesting development. It's time for shiny, shiny, shiny as it seems.

FO3 wasn't the highest on graphics as it came out it had better looking contenders, Skyrim btw. too. I don't see the problem here. Addmitted the first trailers where terrible but it was pretty fast clear that the reason was very bad video compression which removed a lot of details (Vaultsuit is a very good example here).

I certainly didn't need side by sides. I think the comparisons were done for those that are just complaining. You could show them anything and they would still complain about it. I'm with you on being indifferent to "good" graphics. I'm glad they got to a point where it was an improvement and then focused on other newer and frankly to me, more exciting aspects of a new game.

Don't just disagree; cite examples to the contrary.

Why should the Fallout computers look drastically different?

Considering f01/2 were barley passable rpgs we should glad for this.

I don't think you've played Fallout 2 then.

Agreed! Just as you don't ask a plastic surgeon to excise a brain tumor.
(In the medical field, that would be malpractice; but in the games industry it's just peachy.)

**And yet... It seems everyone's happy with them getting outside consultant advice for the shooter gameplay ~rather than a accepting their own "What they do" brand of shooter gameplay.

This is a double standard.

*Triple standard when anyone asks that they should have consulted the original team when making FO3.

I'd say Fallout 1/2 are about as similar as Fallout 3/NV.

...What.

Forgive the hubris, but it's a brilliant argument.Pretty much the first reaction (to my dismay) to Fallout 4's trailer was the purportedly "bad graphics" backlash.

This dissatisfaction has been reified by the need and creation of side-by-side comparisons screenshots.

Graphics matter, without such fidelity we wouldn't have the aesthetic peaks of the Witcher 3 (with Fallout 4 being closer to the nadir if anything).

Also I challenged Awesomepossum to this point a while ago, name me an rpg of relatively similar scope to Fallout 3 that could be deemed to look better graphically, that was also released within the same time period?

^^lol, is this 1984 I just walked into?

Anyway, I think the game looks great. I like the art style, and that seems to be a much bigger focus for Bethesda this time around vs graphics, which for many years, close to over a decade, they've been pushing the envelope in that.

But I do have to wonder, and this may seem like a trivial thing, but perhaps they weren't able to push out as much graphics power due to the PC having over 13,000 lines of voiced dialog. I mean a disc can only fit so much. This might not be the case at all, but it makes me wonder...

Wow. I don't know what went wrong there, but I played Skyrim on 360 (installed to HDD) and my load times were nowhere near that long

By what metric?

Other than entirely subjective arrogation?

lol right???? I mean having 10 different endings, being able to be a slaver or play the game to completion as an idiot didn't offer any roleplaying depth whatsoever.