I put this post in Steam Community also, interested to see the difference in response:

Graphics:
I dont think people realize just how much is rendered in a Bethesda universe, but i'd think it'd be fair to speculate that they put more objects (especially ones that you can manipulate) into their world than any other game out there. So when you compare the 'open world' graphics of a game like Witcher 3 to Fallout 4 a better comparison might be to focus on the artistic look and feel and not directly compare frame rates or load screens (or lack thereof); and also you have to realize there's always trade off with these things because of physical memory limitations; maybe a simple example would be objects (polygons) vs high quality textures

Load screens:
I've been playing Bethesda games since Morrowind, this game has less load screens (transitions) than any other Bethesda game in the past and for me and most other people i see not having configuration issues or hardware limitations seem to be having almost negligible load times of 10 seconds give or take

Content:
this game has hundreds of hours of content (whether you like the content or not); it would take too long to list, and others have already done it in other threads; to me this is the most moot argument

Replayability:
I think the new perk tree combined with the removal of the lvl cap greatly increases replayability allowing you to take many approaches to your wasteland experience; put simply you need to reach lvl 270 to have max special with all the perks; so i guess you can become God, but it'll probably take you as long as it took him xD; I also really like the new perk system because i really dont like the mountains of numbers that a lot of rpg's use, its one thing to work with some stats here and there but a lot of RPGs end up turning into a physics exam where you need a formula sheet and i think this just absolutely takes away from immersion and any kind of realism

Combat Mechanics:
I've seen a lot of people (including myself) point out how much better the real time combat mechanics are; the new grenade key implementation has some complaints, but as pointed out this is due to the limitation of console controllers and I think we can all agree its still better than having no grenade key at all; there are plenty of us that use the grenades without any problem

Dialogue:
This is an area i think the general consensus is that there's plenty of room for improvement. I do like the new mechanic of how conversations are handled, but the lack of options and outcomes is certainly noteworthy; i really do hope mods can help out in this area if possible

Atmosphere:
I feel that this Fallout is definitely more immersive and fun to explore than the previous ones. I feel like there's a lot more going on, more to find, and with the new weather system and lighting I feel a constant shroud of suspense as i roam the wasteland with action around every corner keeping me on my toes

Stability:
I've seen quite a few posts (again, including my own) from people that have played many of the previous Bethesda games and I can definitely say that this one is by far the most stable on release. Bethesda games always have bugs and crashes because the scope of their games are HUGE, but i can run this program on my laptop for literally days without any issues whatsoever, and i certainly couldn't do that with the previous FO and ES games. Shoot if you even alt-tab out of FONV (w/out mod) it crashes the game.

I could probably add a lot more, but I feel like most complaints i see are all about what the game doesn't have and skipping over all the things that it does have. Also there is so much subjective comparison to other games and people complaining because Bethesda did not design the game around their own personal preferences or gameplay strategy.

I feel like people's expectations for this game were unrealistic so many felt let down, but i think more focus should be put on what is there rather what isn't; glass half full point of view

fact of the matter is for 2015, and by comparison in the marketplace, this is a phenomenal game that will pull you in and keep you busy for days

i could add more areas to critique like settlements and crafting etc. but i've typed enough now so i'll leave that to you . Please add objective feedback

i think the issue is more (for me personally it definitely is) not that its a bad game its a bad fallout game

im enjoying the hell out of it and i think its good game (theres plenty i dislike and lots i hate but also plenty i do like about it) but its absolutely lost the fallout soul, its more a generic open world simplified and lite rpg type game to me than a true fallout game.

cant explain well on internet sorry but skyrim with guns i think of it rather than a true fallout game

It's dumb, graphically and technically dated feeling, awkward, and silly, but the big game world to explore in first person is still kind of fun if you're forgiving enough. Just like the last three Bethesda games.

It's basically what you'd expect from a game made by this studio with this engine at this time period, plus and minus in a few areas.

I think the biggest misstep has to be the dialogue system along with the voiced and more predefined main character. It just didn't work out very well. Trimming conversations down to 4 options, or fluffing them up to 4 options but most are basically the same, gets old really fast. So does not knowing what you're really going to say with the overly vague descriptions. What roleplaying value their formula has took a major hit in this game. That's the main minus. I really hated being stuck with a character that has a history, an obvious age and race, a wife, and a kid and then being shoehorned into so much so fast. It doesn't play to the strengths of this style of big open world RPG.

On the flip side, working with Id Software to improve the combat is the most noticeable improvement and I must admit I was pleasantly surprised that the FPS gameplay is almost up to par with your typical AAA shooter. It's still got some clunkyness to it but that's mostly due to the engine I'd assume. That's the main plus. We've got some more interesting enemies to play with now, fairly smooth shooting, iron sights that are usable, good variety of scopes, modifications that let you tailor weapons to your play-style, etc. etc.

Worth a mention too is the settlement system. It's poorly implemented, with an awful UI, with very limited options for building currently. And annoying grass/shrubs that clip through everything. Raid defenses are often buggy too. All that said, it's still not a negative since it's a new and fun feature that has a lot of potential, but it's really hard to get into it in its current state.

___

That covers the new stuff, as for the old -

- Yep, they still svck at balancing. Difficulties are just wacky with survival crippling many weapons and builds with its overly simplistic and overly liberal application of damage resistance. Legendary effects vary between useless and "you win the game", perks are pretty hit and miss and tying them to specific SPECIAL wasn't the greatest idea.

- Yeah, it's not a very internally cohesive game world. The map layout doesn't really make sense, poorly defended settlements with unarmored peasant people in crazy dangerous areas. The main city is in the middle of basically a giant war-zone of raiders and super mutants that should prevent any incoming or outgoing trade. You have to really try to put all this out of your mind to get into the setting, or just /sigh at it from time to time and shrug it off.

- It's still got that creation engine look to it, and animations aren't great.

My objective feedback is that op doesn't know what he is talking about.

eg. Comment about "real time combat". It is so apparent that the op hasn't played a single good fps.

Some good points, sir.

I would add: for all the bugs that people (myself included) are b*tching about, if we're honest FO4 is far LESS buggy than any Beth sandbox since Oblivion (that being said, the items-falling-through-tables thing is driving me CRAZY, I really wanna decorate my settlements but can't).

i've played all the Battlefields since the original release of BF 1942; i was hosting 32 vs 32 half-life team fortress games from my dorm room in 1998...

i think this dude explained it well:

Edit: also going to add that i've now played hundreds of hours on survival with more than a few self limitations including removing the targeting reticule (which works better than you'd think); oh yea, and i never use VATS...ever

With all the complaints I have I've easily hit over 100 hours in the game now, that's a lot more than I ever spend on most games.

It's worth the price and it's an awesome, not perfect it has flaws, but I enjoyed it more than any other game I've played this year, specially more than other games people consider better RPGs.

if you read some of the negative comments i can not stop wondering why did they bought this game if they already knew they didn t like the looks of this game

a,d don t tell us you didn t knew the last month before release we had plenty of information about this game

sure this game isn t perfect but atleast it is a bethesda open world game where you can do what you want go whereever you want and be whever you want , within the game limits of course

atleast it is not a storydriven linearhack and slash with a endless parade of cinematic cutscenes

i alreadt have 180 hours plus and i am sure i am going to enjoy this game for many years to come

I'm sick of people saying things like this, it's unoriginal, people said Fallout 3 was Oblivion with guns and then Skyrim to some was Fallout with swords. It's ludicrous, please don't try to make out you haven't heard other people saying it and deny that you are just parroting them!

I think Fallout 4 is an awesome Fallout Game.

Unfortunately I got bored of it faster than any fallout till now.

The dialogue, mainly, is killing its replayability for me. Superficial choices with the same consequences, the character feels the same everytime as the RP possibilities are limited, skill interractions with the environment/dialogue were removed and the game now mostly feels like a shooting gallery rather than an rpg with depth.

I don't think it's a good fallout game but it is a good game and I do believe it is worth its money, especially considering all the AAA cashgrabs they release nowdays.

That's two fouls in the title alone... "worth" isn't objective (and frankly neither is most of what you wrote in the post itself), and you wrote the "objective" review with an agenda - to convince others the game is good.

I could go point by point if you want

Is it unrealistic to expect the next Fallout game to retain Fallout legacy?

I think that maybe those who tend to say this haven't played the previous ones (or just skimmed through them) and when they hear others asking why it doesn't have the depth it should have as a fallout, they think we are asking for something unrealistic or outlandish.

I also saw that from the reactions of people when I quoted the skill checks from the fallout wikki - some people were actually not aware that they existed (those who claim that they are unrealistic) and most were not aware that they were used in so many quests (those who say it was not a downgrade). It happens like that with every game - as the franchise popularity grows they gain new fans and the new fans love it for what it is, even if it is a dumbed down version of the previous title.

It's worth the price, yeah. I got tons of hours out of it before I got burnt out.

Though it does have problems, and a lot of them.

What something is worth to 'YOU' is objective. He is speaking for himself not everyone.

I'm not sure what you mean, to be honest. It's very obvious that BGS is moving the franchise somewhere completely different.

And for the record I replay F2 every two or three years and I am intending to do a 3rd playthrough of FNV next year.

Thanks, I'll save that to my quote database.

You just don't understand what I am saying, doesn't make you right Aoyagi, doesn't make you smart either.

I think the problem is that this...


... is pretty much the textbook definition of subjective. It's like saying that water is dry if you remove all the dampness. Or that black is in fact white if you change your colour pallet.

It is worth. But the Amount of Content is sinking (in Comparison with Skyrim) and i dont like to see this.

Not talking about you but of the line you quoted. To you or me it may be obvious but for those I mentioned in the previous post it is not, unfortunately. We may compare the dialogue for example with that of previous titles, they have nothing to compare it with or compare it with their experiences only.

Hah hah... because of course your subjective view of what if a "good" FPS is the only one worth listening to, right? No, it isn't.

Half-Life and HL2 are good FPSes. Doom 3 is a good FPS.

Fallout is not and never should be considered an FPS nor does it need to be. It's an RPG. Twitch reflexes don't belong in an RPG as there are plenty of games available that rely on such things.

Fallout 4 has good combat, sufficient for any RPG. That is all that is required or desired by any RPG fan. For those who want an action or FPS game, there are plenty available, as I said.

Fallout 4 is also an excellent Fallout game. There are people who prefer to live in the past but society has changed and the game industry has to change along with it. There is content in older games that cannot be done today for various reasons, for example. Get over it or find another hobby rather than whine (or just play old games, of course... but don't try to claim they are "superior" in any way to modern games).

It kind of tickled me that this was titled "objective" and was full of "I feel" statements. I do not think Objective means what you think it means

Look Fallout 4 IS a very accomplished game on many levels but whether it's "good" or "worth the price" are subjective qualities by definition. And if you want to make objective statements about it's technical merits then you should really make sure you have the research to back up your claims not use anecdotes or simply personal opinions.

Anyway, I'm glad you enjoy the game I also think it's a good game as a matter of fact but it represents a clear move away from what made Bethesda games unique in the first place and I hate the voiced protagonist and new dialogue system. Doesn't stop the game from being fun but it makes it less than it could of been for sure (for me).

I look at it from a very simple point of view. Do I enjoy the game. And I do. Immensely.

There are many Threads already with some good Posts. This Thread here is just a Clone of the others.

- Why we cant play Raiders

- Medium Map Size

- NOT ENOUGH CONTENT

... and now this Thread. Its all the same

Yes you are right, my mistake, I should have said subjective not objective. As should the OP regarding his critique!!

Fallout is a game. Games are a form of art do you not agree?

Art is the definition of subjective. You might be able to convince a mug to pay thousands for a canvas with a line drawn on it, doesn't mean it's 'worth' that to everyone.

This isn't just my opinion this is a widely regarded concept, although it may be a little too philosophically advanced or 'grown up' for some to understand. (not talking about you).