Honestly I felt more of an impact working with the BoS or Institute then I did with any of NV's factions. Especially with the radiant quest system where I can just play as regular member of the organization, I get the whole "people want to be the savior and power house of a faction" but honestly I just want to be another cog in the clock, sure I don't mind being higher up but I still like to feel like I'm a member of this faction instead of "THE GREAT SAVIOR OF [insert name here]"

They did learn from New Vegas but not enough. They didn't put in any real consequences, the dialogue can't hold a candle to New Vegas, and there are little no options on how to do quests.

At least this time they gave us different factions side with for the main quest. They made the world more realistic as in everyone isn't living in a radioactive [censored] hole with 200 year old food to eat. The world of Fallout 4 isn't a giant random theme park that Fallout 3 is.

That's largely due to the fact that Bethesda's worlds are full of dynamic and random encounters along with a constantly updating map, whereas NV was something more like Morrowind were 99% of the NPCs just stand in one spot all day.

NV never had anything like the enclave outposts and vertibird encounters in Fallout 3, or how the various factions in Fallout 4 start actualyl setting up outposts, sending squads on recon/purge missions, etc. etc.

Even Sawyer has said he wishes he could go back and add those sort of things to NV.

New Vegas had no consequences outside its ending slides... which is to say none at all. All New Vegas did in-game was the same thing Fallout 4 does, replace one group of generic NPCs with a named NPC leader with a group of generic NPCs and maybe a named leader from the other faction. And Fallout 4 easily trumps NV in that regard with its far more active BoS vertibird assaults and synth spawns. Nothing you did actually mattered in the game itself in NV.

As for dialogue... "I KNOW HOW TO USE DYNAMITE!" and "I TOLD THEM HAD A THEORETICAL DEGREE IN PHYSICS" are hardly great lines. NV's dialogue was as good as every other game, which is too say, utter [censored].

And I wold rather have game with few options then one with a bunch where none of them actually DO anything. There was more of an actual change in the game world from the USS Constitute quest then there was in 90% of the quests in New Vegas. Options mean nothing unless those options actually DO something in the game itself, and changing ending slides isn't in the game itself.

Well Fallout 3's world, as has been demonstrated times beyond counting, was never like that.... so Fallout 4 is really no different there.

Uhhh did you play Fallout 4? There were consequences.

That was a huge bother for me, the linearity of most quests, both in methods of completing them and in their resolution. It usually boils down to either kill that guy/get that thing(usually only one way of achieving the objective) and sometimes chose A or B in the end. I remember someone mentioning the Kings quest in NV and how many actual ways you had to go about completing that quest which led to different outcomes.

On the same level as Fallout New Vegas? I didn't see that.

I am happy we can fail some quests. If we don't help people things can get destroyed.

Guess Bethesda will have to make do with record sales, the best thing about it is, it will help pay for them to make the next record breaking fallout game

A 0 or 10 is sometimes justified. If the game forces you to claw out your eyes and ears with your hands and hit your head on a wall until you lose all memory of the past 5 years due to how awful it is, then it deserves a 0. If a game makes you achieve enlightenment due to witnessing absolute perfection, then it deserves a 10.

It is funny to imagine the top people behind Fallout 4 sitting on a giant pile of money laughing their butts off reading bad reviews.

But if the negative reviews are for real and not some giant conspiracy by "haters" then Bethesda could be in for a rude awaking in the future. Then again maybe not.

Whether it's 2002 or 2015, do you think Bethesda's writing or story is comparable to CDprojekt Red? Sure they can write lore but in terms of character, dialogue and etc they simply can't compete.





That list is from PCgamer and it also places Skyrim pretty high as well, higher than New Vegas if I recall...


It is hypocritical, both games are made by the exact same company with the same formula. Do they honestly think that Bethesda would do something with Fallout they couldn't do with TES with TES being their own creation and what made Bethesda what they are? Why is radiant subpar quests acceptable in Skyrim when it's own predecessor Oblivion did so much better. Clearly Skyrim didn't learn jack from Oblivion how to make better quest lines nor did it learn anything from both Oblivion and Morrowind about how to make a deep world where your actions acutally mean something and instead created a hollow world where nothing you did mattered.


If Bethesda could barely learn from their own creation at times, did these fans expect them to do so with a game that wasn't their own and from a company that wasn't themself?

What I find hilarious is that people harp on EA and Ubisoft for only caring about profits, and now are all like "who cares about reviews, awards and stuff like that, game sells like hotcakes so Beth is obviously doing their job right".

The only game I give a Zero is Rome Total War 2. And that's because I can't even get the damn game to play. It crashes after my first turn. I have read everything that might fix it and nothing works. I say "might" because I haven't found anything official to fix it. Many people have that problem with the game from what I can tell and it's been out for years now.

So yeah crap like that deserves a Zero.

Well obviously we're talking about Fallout 4...and I don't see any 0 rating on this game as being a reasonable response.

>CDPR

>Character

>literally Gary Stu with no emotions beyond wanting to [censored] anything that looks like a woman(Geralt)

>cliche and underdeveloped high school pretty girl whose just a selfish [censored](Yen)

>equally cliche and underdeveloped sweet girl with bun hair(Triss)

>cliche evil witches

>cliche MUH DRUNK FATHER/abusive husband story line with zero depth or originality to it

Please, even many CDPR fans admit most of The Witcher's cast is horrendously bland characters with little to them beyond one a singular character trait that just gets made their entire character. the entire cast being unlikeable is often cited as one of the biggest reasons why people can't finish Witcher games.

Given the whole stupidly with gamesas and Obisidan over the New Vegas score on Metacritic I wouldn't be surprised if gamesas punishes the hell out of BGS for also getting terrible user scores ignoring the more legitimate ones on Steam that is the exact same as their previous Fallout game.

Skyrim came in at number 21. Morrowind got 7 place. New Vegas came in a 13 and Fallout 2 came in at number 3. http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-rpgs-of-all-time-1/

Oh please you don't want to get me started on Bethesda's characters now do you lol....


Though I will say that Fallout 4 has the most memorable characters overall in BGS history. Compared to some of the characters in their previous games even friggin Soup Can Harry is more developed.

It happens. To be fair, it isn't always the same people though. EA and Ubisoft (and Bethesda) exist solely to make money on art. Game developers who sell art that people are willing to pay for and manage to stay in business are doing it right. Game developers who make fantastic games and still go belly up may be making great art, but that isn't enough (Looking at you, BigHuge Games).


Customers who keep buying art that I personally can't stand...well. They're doing it all wrong, obviously. The people who enjoy COD, Farmville, or Metal Gear enough to keep it going this long are no different than people who really like Nutella, handlebar mustaches, or obscure glam rock bassists; I think they're totally bent in the head, but it's all about taste. If people agreed with my tastes they be playing a lot of Angband, being obnoxious on fan forums, and drinking too much black coffee.


Takes all kinds.

Most characters in Bethesda games are just random peasants, in a game set in a medieval like world full of peasants. They should be no more memorable then a guy you bumped shoulders with on accident while walking down a busy street.

That is how the world is, and how any game trying to depict a realistic world should be.

This idiotic notion that companies like Bioware and CPDR seem to have, where every person you meet has to be like some ultra cliche action/drama/comedy movie stereotype that doesn't actually exist, aka like Garrus, or King Foltest at the beginning of Witcher 2, only shows a desire to pander to a crowd they seem to think has ADHD, and needs flashy gimmick characters to be assumed, rather then to actually trying to create a believable world full of PEOPLE instead of CHARACTERS.

I think it's completely ridiculous to compare the two (Skyrim/W3) in the manner you are. Skyrim did well for the year it came out and built on the traditional experiences that drove TES games - and yes it beat out Witcher 2 which was an equally enjoyable experience. Saying "well Witcher 3 would beat it any day" is such meaningless rhetoric because it didn't exist at the time. It's like me saying, "well if Skyrim came out in 2007 it would have also crushed Witcher 1."

People always try to speak for everyone, and you don't 'lose' a GOTY award, you are awarded one, or not.

They are not releasing buggy games over and over again and getting away with it, that is a very naive POV. Bethesda have released increasingly stable games they get less buggy as time goes on (Skyrim had a few more than Oblivion owing to the new engine) they listen to their fans and they patch as many bugs as they can, they continue to evolve and improve as a company and as developers and writers.

Don't let it happen to Elder Scrolls? Did you play Skyrim. It's not even debatable that Skyrim was 10 or more times as buggy as Fo4, there is literally no disputing that. So that's silly.

TW3 is actually a much simpler game mechanically, and apart from the hunts there are like 5 enemy types, and the whole map looks.... pretty much the same. I love the TW3 but there is no way it is 'better' than Fo4, you can't really compare the two to be fair.

Ehh, a mix of both. I do feel like a lot of designers use a lot of cliches and try to make too many backstories emotional, but I'm sure if you talked to anyone you met you'd learn at least something about them that makes them interesting.

When is the last GotY award given out? Maybe after tonight everyone can stop caring about GotY 2015 and people can find another way to make repeating threads about the Witcher 3 being so much better than Fallout 4. Because that's what this is really about: The Witcher 3 has more GotY awards than any other game by a wide margin, with Fallout 4 in second. And I still think that was at least partly a self-fulfilling prophecy considering the hype surrounding that game (Bethesda and their Fallout in particular get a lot more hate for a lot more reasons), but that doesn't mean that the Witcher 3 isn't a great game. I'll let other people explain how they're different, and enjoy each for what they do well.

I can understand when certain characters are underdeveloped. However the problem comes when important charcters are also poorly developed. Like really the only person who was really developed at all in Skyrim was Ulfric as the millions of civil war threads and fan threads on the Skyrim forums can attest to and while I think there is more to him, many other people think he doesn't stray far from the typical Nordic cliche. Sometimes cliches aren't all that bad.. well with the exception of Serana and the rest of the Volkihar who are about cliche as you can get with Vampires.

That is incredibly disturbing. The Witcher series is Archie: The Fantasy Game.