Sad, but oh so true. Personally, I think the vitriol is about the same though.

Not trying to continue this Fallout 4 vs NV thing but how is the Minuteman, Railroad, BoS and Insititute better than the NCR, House and Leigion? The Insititute is the reason for Super Mutants in Boston by giving unwilling people the FEV, they kill people and replace them with synths, and instead of talking out their problem they prefer to kill whoever is causing it . They're not much better than the Leigion.

House is a rich d bag but is he worse than the BoS and Railroad? House wants you to kill 2 factions in NV same as Railroad and BoS.

The Minuteman are fine I guess.

No I wasn't but we not just talking about this forums but the general feeling around this game by gamers in general. Skyrim might have gotten hate here but was considered a masterpiece by most. That's not the same with Fallout 4( mostly because a good bit of them are legit).

I agree, but, at least I can get some motivation from all the factions in F4. I never got a clear idea just why I should help any of the factions in NV other than their own selfishness.

The Minutemen are the good guys. That I can deal with.

The Railroad are deluded in many ways since they don't care about regular people, only the synths, so their morality is pretty muddy.

The BoS I am sure aren't horrible, although they're no less xenophobic or genocidal than in any of their other incarnations, they're just led by Maxsom who is, in my opinion, utterly insane.

The Institute? I realize that they're overall goal was noble, but it was lost long ago IMO. Now they're just about enslaving their "creations" and remaking the world.

Funny, but in NV, the NCR were a bunch of weenies without direction; the Legion was just reprehensible; and everyone in Vegas, from House to the Cannibals to the families were yutz's; and don't get me started on the BoS in NV (why bother). Frankly, the only ones I actually kind of liked were the Khans and the Powder Gangers (odd, I know, but at least they had a reason).

Basically I just side with the Robot and walk away from the whole mess since I couldn't give a flyin' fig.

Give it time. It was the same thing for Skyrim for the first 6 months or so. Then they declared it a masterpiece. We'll have to see how it plays out. Since pretty much 90% of the complaints are the same, I suspect it will take about the same amount of time for the dust to settle.

BTW: many of the Skyrim complaints were legit as well.

New Vegas got the same stuff. Fallout 3 got the same stuff. Oblivion got the same stuff. Morrowind got the same stuff.

The only thing that prevented Daggerfall from having a small collection of people waffle on about how Daggerfall is dumbed down trash compared to Arena is that the Internet was in its infancy in 1996. By the time of 2002 when Morrowind was released you could find all sorts of threads all over the place about the "Lack of choices and consequences" and "Kill, loot, return" of Morrowind compared to how supposedly sophisticated Daggerfall was.

Its just a white noise that every large enough gaming community generates. There's always people who will completely blast whatever is new regardless of quality. Morrowind is now held up in those same arguments of what a TES game should be, but it was absolutely not how it was when Morrowind was the new game.

Dismissing the flaws and ignoring the white noise is a bit flippanty. And i don′t expect that the criticans re-declared it to a masterpiece. The real result of all these changes will be visible with the next upcoming title somewhen and not when somewhen 6 months later says something is a masterpiece.

Skyrim got away with it cause it had a solid playerbase that already knew how Bethesda "does" things - even if they like it or not. They are used to the series and used to how Bethesda acts.

Fallout has a very core playerbase since 1997. In 2008 this playerbase got into some serious but smaller first problems: Bethesda finally finished their work on the bought franchise and suddenly merged with Fallout 3 the old playerbase with the bethesda games fans (elder scrolls players) and an unknown ammount of the shooter players. The problem from then is a bit difficult to describe, but Fallout was never a real shooter or something, neither a complete open world game they "forced" you to do everything on your own (forced is not the correct word, but Bethesda games for some reason nearly never have multiple guiding lines).

And this is a mixup that will somewhen scare one of these groups away.

Some user always want to declare metacritic, but why did skyrim - by all the rage, still get a userrating of 8.1 with over 8k ratings and Fallout gets very fast a giant 5.4 punishment? This does not come out of nowhere. And even Steam crititcs are mixed up cause a lot of users give it a thumbs up (about 75% of the reviews), but if you read through them they gave the thumbs for the shooterpart cause the fallout feeling and rpg part is nearly missing?

I find the situation a bit confusing.

This argument begins with the fallacy of comparing JRPGs to WRPGs, which are so different they might as well be separate genres. Go play some old WRPGs like Ultima and Baldur's Gate and then tell me paying attention to your build and planning it out doesn't matter.

But modern gamers don't want that.

Most of us just want games that are a diversion. No deep thought or deep tactics. Just get in, kill some things and get out.

I think it has to do with a short attention span.

There was a time, and I fully agree that games like Ultima and Baldur's gate were awesome, but very few have the patience anymore for that sort of thing.

It strikes me that MMOs are much more that way nowadays. ESO is a good example. Build and strategy is very important.

With single-player AAA games, in general, the build doesn't really matter. You'll get the perks eventually. You'll get the equipment eventually. You'll rule the world eventually.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the way it's going.

Sure there are games that actually do take thought and strategy out there, but I'm not really finding them in the AAA releases. It's all about the flash and bang. And that holds true even in titles like Witcher and Dragon Age.

Sure the whole industry is trending this way, which is lamentable, but I was just pointing out that the OP was *complaining* he had to plan his builds more compared to old RPGs. And the old RPGs he was using as an example were JRPGs, which do 90% of the leveling decision making for you.

thats perfectly fine and each to there own, and honestly im glad you enjoy it and have games that you like readily available

BUT

and this is a big but, you have a billion different games to choose from that are like that, those of us that do like them have a very small base to choose from now. so when another franchise turns into what FO4 has become well thats even less to choose from, and that hurts because its not like we actually have other choices.

if FO4 was more like the games of old and you were like well i dont like that, there are tonnes absolute tonnes of other games you could go get instead

everyday there are games coming out that apply to the "Most of us just want games that are a diversion. No deep thought or deep tactics. Just get in, kill some things and get out" i just wish there was some coming out for those of us that do want thought, tactics, storyline etc

me personally i hate what fallout has become with 4

i liked 3 and accepted it for what it was NV was awesome in my opinion but 4 i really dislike what it has become, but if i wanna say ohwell ill just buy something else instead, well what is there?

thats the problem, its all well and good catering to the biggest mass market but i wish there was something for us aswel

(oh and i haaaaate MMO games)

Of course that would be the perfect fallout game and a enjoyable one. The thing is that FO4 made a trade-off. Yes we got the new combat, power armor, animations, voiced actor....but we lost or say "cut" a few features and "cut" a lot of dialogue, which of course had to be done since you have to record everything twice instead of once. The thing is for some this is a good trade-off for some it isn't. There is still the upcoming DLC, which may change things.

I believe they can turn this conversation system into an overall positive, but they need to make the right choices with it for the DLC.

Why do you "have to record everything twice?" Are you talking about a male and female protagonist?

I wanted to add to that consideration the fact that: protagonist voice mods are, ostensibly, now a prospect. They never were before. Yet another innovation.

It may actually be far too much dialogue to record for most modders, but given the scale of some of the mods that were popular for Skyrim, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility. They are after all, just files including some sort of tags to play the appropriate lines of the voice actor at the appropriate times. Assuming the format of those files and the 'wrappers' or tags that identify all the separate parts can be matched up with the actual script(s) that were used, I would think it would be doable, though massive in scale.