And there's that issue of what "replayability" means to different people. I've only played FO:NV like 1.5 times, because there's so little to explore and so much of it is linear. It just doesn't compel me to play again. FO3, on the other hand, I've made at least half a dozen characters in. Most of them never bothered with the main quest except where they happened to run across parts of it while exploring. NV, there's very little to do except the MQ and the sidequests it leads you to. (My second, partial playthrough was after I got the DLC. And I just went through it enough to get to the DLC. Still have the fifth one to do, actually.)

Of course, it's probably because my approach when playing these open-world/sandbox games is "pick a playstyle/skillset, and explore the wastes". Not "create an elaborate backstory and try to fit it into the world." They're just basic character outlines.... (like, in Skyrim, I've got "good, Imperial-side, stealth/archery/sword&board" and "neutral, Nord-side, heavy armor & two-hander" among my characters. Not "outcast farmer from Morrowind" or "wandering minstrel from Cyrodiil, fleeing an arranged marriage". )

My opinion only on the article and the forum posts in general.

Too much opinion peddled as fact with too many people unwilling to discuss these "facts" with anyone who disagrees.

Too many people blind to the bad with the counter of too many people blind to the good.

Too many armchair experts in all aspects of anything you could possibly think to mention in connection with this game.

Too much looking back at the old games with rose tinted glasses and again not accepting that they had series downfalls also. Its seems that with the release of each new game the previous game suddenly becomes better than it ever was. Bethesda should simply re-release all previous titles in a series upon the release of new titles in the series and if this forum is anything to go buy they would make billions!!

So many people who clearly have not played the game for even close to the time they claim or at the difficulty level they claim to be playing.

And in my honest opinion there are far far far too many people who want it the way they want it screw everyone else and if it's not how they want then the game is crap end of story don't matter what you think.

No one is ever gonna agree and it would help if the forums sections went General Discussions, Spoilers, Complaints that way if you need help or want to post something you enjoyed or didn't there is a place to post it without having to trail through very similar post you personally have no interest in.

Hmmm... I guess in some ways you could argue that Fallout 3 offers a much cleaner slate than Skyrim or Fallout 4. Skyrim was the worst of the TES games in terms of making your character the way you want as you are force-fed all the Dragonborn bullcrap.

Lol I still have no clue how to use workshops and have never bothered to play with it.

Why is there still no Elvis Presley and does Obsidian have a monopoly on the usage of Frank Sinatra's songs or something?

I can completely get behind what you're saying about how role-playing constraints can be positive, and I would if it were presented better in this game.

I absolutely love the Witcher series and cherish it as an RPG. Although I did not play Mass Effect 3 because I was disappointed with the demo (or was it a beta?), I enjoyed Mass Effect 1 and 2. I would say that Dragon Age: Origins is one of my favorite RPGs and I've beaten that svcker with every origin and ending, plus replayed some origins.

With the games listed above you are handed certain constraints, especially if you read the Witcher novels. I won't say this holds true for all, but [to me] Fallout 4 fell woefully short in all regards to those games. Bethesda's weakness, which they have admitted to, is their writing and dialogue. I think they tried to make a better narrative by constraining people's role-playing and hiding dialogue behind the wheel, but in my opinion this was their weakest game yet. I felt less for this character and his family than I did for the Lone Wanderer's personal journey.

I honestly can't answer what the problem is either: It could be the dialogue system (which I hate), it could be the voiced protagonist (which I hate), it could be the fact that Nora and Nate handle a gun equally as well and that perks and leveling don't change how they handle their weapons, it could be the limited choices, etc. etc.

The issue for me is that I think they stretched themselves far too thin. I think they attempted to take popular mechanics from a bunch of other games, but they fell short of those other games. It's a culmination of everything listed above that ruined this game for me (except art and non-protag voice acting; those were incredible).

The worst part is that a small group of people were working on this game since Fallout 3, they had Obsidian's model with New Vegas, they had around four years since Skyrim. In seven years they settled on this narrative, dialogue and system, they ignored New Vegas and modeled with Skyrim in mind and got help from FPS developers to make an RPG game. I can appreciate the last part, were my character to play the way he/she does after maxing out his associated perks, but for a lawyer to handle a gun fresh out of the vault better than trained killers?

I can agree with the article is some regards. I think most like me who like a "mute" character do so because even if the dialog choices are halfwit we can imagine in our minds of answering it a certain way. In FO4 when you are trying to imagine your character as a BA only for them to speak like a librarian or confused car salesmen it does detract you from the world.

People compare TW3 and ME when trying to make counter points against having a mute. Thing is TW3's script and Geralts VA were spot on to the setting and the backstory of Geralt, same with ME. I love FO4 but it really is "Nerds in apocalypse" with the voiced protagonist. With that said I'm not having any problems playing multiple characters.

I am going to have to agree with the article here. I am trying finish my second playthrough but I have to quit after 45 minutes of play out of boredom. Same boring radiant quests, almost no alternative solutions to quests and incredibly repetitive dialogue.

Witcher was also always a voiced protagonist series. You're not making up your own character. Geralt is Geralt.

Bethesda is trying to change the core of what their games have always been. Cutscene-style dialogue sequences, dialogue wheel with choices that essentially result in the same thing, de-emphasis on RPG elements, emphasis on a more-linear "first person shooter"-styled story, a voiced player character that is more defined by Bethesda and less defined by the player.

It all adds up and it is really fundamentally changing what being a "Bethesda game" will mean.

This.

I think the best thing about Fallout 4 that gives it better replay value than Fallout 3 and New Vegas is how the new leveling system works. The new leveling system in Fallout 4 actually respect and follow your character while also not forcing you to do things you may not want to do with that character. I remember in the other two games, I'll try a character with 1 Intelligence and Charisma but high Strength and such... But, due to how the terrible leveling system works, I somehow ended up with 100 Speech and 100 Science and was able to talk like I'm a master at Charisma or hack Master Level Enclave Terminals...

Basically, the SPECIAL stats you pick at the start of Fallout 4 actually has an effect on your overall character and you aren't forced to do things with that character which would go against it. (Using perk points is completely optional). I like it. It allows me to create more characters to try out in Fallout 4 without having to ruin my character.

I totally agree with you. The leveling system is broad enough to allow you to specialize in something completely different the second, third and fourth time around. Because, especially in those early levels, changing your priority in terms of perks can definitely yield a different advantage than someone else.

Similar to MMO's, I think that's what can make or break players. Some people love the idea of redoing the game with a totally different build, while they skip through the story as fast possible.Others want to make a new build but can't play through the exact same content a second time around.

And for me I think, to the article's point, there just isn't enough variation in the game's dialogue, the room to grow a different personality and story routes to warrant a second play-through.

Fallout 3 didn't have low int dialogue lol

Fallout 3 had mega linear quests too

[INTELLIGENCE]So you fight the good fight with your voice?

A lot of the dialog was "low int", just not tied to the stat itself most of the time.

Honestly, the dialogue system in Fallout 4 is pretty terrible. At least there's enough options for allow some different personalities but not enough. The replay value in Fallout 4 is more about how you progress and play your character rather than in the story and dialogue. Which I feel is what Bethesda is best at honestly.

Most of the time, their stories are pretty terrible or just linear. They are there just for content and main story that goes with the idea of a main character idea that they advertise. What makes Bethesda's RPGs really shine is the character creation, leveling system, and the freedom of doing whatever you want in an open world (well almost. Can't kill main quest characters and companions in Fallout 4 for example).

For example, Fallout 3's story was honestly just terrible and didn't really offer too much. It was also too White and Black sided. (Fallout 4's story is much better and has a lot more grey areas, allowing some differences but it still follow a specific type of story; New Vegas did the same thing). Any Elder Scrolls game's story is pretty much linear as well too.

Completely agreed. It is one of the major reasons this is the lowest average scoring BGS game to date.

Did Fallout 4 get replay value? Not in my opinion.

1) Voicing of male protag

The lady that did the female did a MUCH better job. She incorporates the right tones into the right dialogue. The guy? Can he sound more whipped, whiney and whimpy? I'm sorry, but he's a military veteran that's going to save his son, defeat the monsters of the wasteland, and sound like that? I had to turn off the sound in the first hour of playing him.

2) Settlements

I LIKE building things. I sent several hours building up Sanctuary into a fortress that would rival a military base in defense. And then... I got to see all that time... all that work... be for naught. The buggy attacks, defenses, spawning, settlers... just no.

3) No choices

I can be good. Or I can be good with a snarky tone. Good or Good. Hmmmm... yeah... that's a lot of choices. No nuking Megaton. No killing off the towns to side with the evil raiders. No mass murders. Just you being a goody two shoes or snarky one.

4) Factions

Sure, NV wasn't MUCH better, but, it WAS better. This was a step BACKWARDS from an already small selection given by the previous game. W...T... come on. EXPAND not regress.

5) Irritations

From dogmeat whining every 10 seconds, to your male character sounding like he's...to companions like Piper...to the buggy settlements...can this game get MORE irritating to play? It would be hard to think of how.

Replay it? Why? It's less irritating to watch paint dry, and, at times more fun.

Skyrim cost me $89 (AS), FO4 cost me $69 (AS). Win....

Sounds like the reviewer simply has a case of the gripes because the game isn't how he or she wanted it to be...which is valid, seeing a significant number of 'keen Beth players' feel the same way. But, I would suggest that there are more significant issues within the game than potential problems with enjoying future playthroughs...

To be fair to Beth though, I'd suggest that the game is aimed at the core of really long-term players, those who invest a lot of time in each run through, rather than those who do a number of run throughs relatively quickly. Basically, those players who are still in there a few years later, working with those modders who are still there, creating and playing in extremely detailed modded up game worlds.

Put it another way...on my next run through, I might actually do the main quest. On this first run through, I've only just started on it, six months gametime after leaving the vault. Does that invalidate that review?

Fallout 3 had skill checks in dialog and skill environment interaction and it did also have SPECIAL choices in its dialog. Don't make me quote whole pages from the wiki for the 1000th time. Go see them yourself if you don't remember the game. FO4 takes the cake when it comes to linear quests, worse than FO3. FNV had even more skill checks and branching than FO3 and also low int dialog etc.

And don't tell me "FNV is not Bethesda's game and that you can't compare them" because that's just silly. Of course you can - in fact Bethesda did take some elements from FNV but it didn't take the most important ones.

I agree with the article's points, but I don't think it hurts the game as much as the article implies.

Just to add.

After playing and beating the game, and playing it all over again. The games seems to have " intended" factions that you are suppose to join depending on what character you want. Those are the minutemen allied with the railroad for a good/neutral character. The institute for a pragmatic/evil character. Based on the story, and what is known about the protagonists past, the Minutemen and the Institute have a stronger connection to the protagonist than the Brotherhood or Railroad does.

Also,

Are 3rd generation synths human? This was a big issue in the game, but the game doesn't tell you enough to make a concrete decision. No matter what I did, I felt indifferent about it, and the Brotherhood wants to kill them all without knowing anything about them really, and the Railroadf wants you to treat them like humans just because they think they have a soul, even though they know little about them. The minutemen have the most rational stance to this issue, as like I said above, they are a neutral faction. All they care about is rebuilding the commonwealth, and helping all of it's residents, whether they be Synth, Ghoul or Human; to each his/her own.

Well said. A "Complaints" Sub thread in which to house threads such as this one would be a boon. The experts on the myriad foibles of FO4 could all congregate and leave those of us who just want to enjoy the game and discuss its features in peace.

I'm on my 2nd playthrough. I plan on doing one for each of the factions, so I can see all of their missions. 2nd playthrough is just as fun to me as the first, and I imagine the 3rd and 4th will be as well.

I kept myself from doing any BOS quests since that just wasn't who my character was, so aside from maybe creating a new character to go through those? I really can't see the point. The game never really "had me" in the first place.

I can't see anything I really disagree with. But I also expect that DLC will allow for much more scope.

You shouldn't have to rely on future purchasable content and mods to get a replayable experience from a triple-A commercial product. Especially not one that is advertised as a replayable, sandbox open-world role-playing action adventure. That kind of defies all logic.

Here's how I see it: The main game is only part of the story, the DLCs are the extra chapters that are put in at a later date. Of course, since I don't like buying things online (console or PC), I'll have to wait until years later for a potential Fallout 4 GOTY edition with the main game and all its DLCs before I enjoy the full thing.

Still gonna be playing the hell out of the game until them.

I am pretty sure it's a bug due to lazy programming from some guy in Bethesda.

Just like how the player does not play the Piper "let me into Diamond City" crap if it's completed once, or collect all the optional items before going to the Institute for the first time, etc.