why is this even being compared??

FO4 vs. FO3..and Oblivion vs. Skyrim...seem more logical a comparison to me...

why would Bethesda have to try to 1-up Skyrim (TES) with FO4 (fallout)...they should be trying to do that to each games predecessor...

Yes, also the quests feels emptier for me, not much backstory, outside of main / faction quest line its typically one or two sentences. Main diference from radiant is that they say the location and the location is usually better set up.

But the Filler Quests of Skyrim made a better Job as the Filler Feature of the Settlement System in FO4. Even the different Locations where you got send,and i just see the Lack in FO4. Even the lack of Encounters in FO4. Skyrim had already a little Problem with that but its even more worse in FO4. I try to enjoy all Locations but the North, South and West of the Commonwealth are a bit empty, soemtimes i just hope i will fight some good Enemies but even they are missing.

The Variety of the Mission Objects was atleast bigger in Skyrim. Kiling is in both Games the same but Variety what to do and what Stories are behind this Location is improtant.

Fallout 4 has so far 1 City and 2 big Settlements (Bunkerhill+Good Neighbor). Its more like having only Whiterun, Morthal and Riverside in Skyrim. I have choosed those Cities because of the Amount of NPC's. This Game feels much more empty than Bethesdas last Game.

Again, skyrim was the same for a lot of it's quests outside of factions and a handful of side-quests. The radiant quests, which makes a majority of skyrim's quests, is just "random location in a list of pre-selected dungeons" or would be "go talk to this person" or "go get me this ingredient from the local shop" because they can't be assed to do it themselves.


I was doing a completionist run LITERALLY all last month before I got Fallout 4, I know that claim is instant bull crap because I saw first hand how bull crap it was. They weren't doing a good job at all, they were doing a lousy job because it was just "hey go to this location because reasons" or "hey go get me some booze"

again, you're ignoring facts and instead just saying "well more quests so that must mean they're good!" but they're not, hell go to UESP each one is there, see how bland and repetitive they are for yourself instead of feeding this bullcrap to people.

"More quests" is not an indicator of anything, this is just another silly complaint made with half-assed information just to make FO4 look bad.

You forget one important thing and that is the Background Storie and you cant deny that Skyrim had Storie Problems in anyway, maybe it was not the best but atleast there was some. I really miss the Depth of Storie telling in FO4.

"There is something dangerous arround, i dont know what it is but i know its there".

It not like anyone said quests were better in Skyrim, but like you said they've done the same with FO4, only less. All those those examples here that supposedly show how weak quests were in Skyrim have an equivalent in FO4:

- booze for beggar / coke for beggar

- fetch item from cave full of bandit / clear building full of raiders

- collect ingredients / collect tools

etc.

Yes background story of a priest of arkay somehow losing his journal in a cave or background story of getting a drunk a bottle of ale from the local inn or background story of punching a person in the face or background story of OH WAIT MOST DIDN'T HAVE BACKGROUND STORIES. There were a handful with almost believable background stories but most didn't. Some were just "go get this ingredient" or "go get this artifact that I somehow know is in this cave" or "go fetch me a book" or "hey let's punch each other in the face a few times" oh and the glorious background story of "hey pick some veggies for me"

Again, silly complaint and silly comparison made with half-assed information and bull crap.


I'm not saying either did either better, I'm not doing a pissing contest here between skyrim and fallout 4 I'm pointing out the entire point of this thread is silly nonsense built on half-assed information to make most of the repetitive bland as hell radiant quests you got in skyrim seem better then they actually were to just make some stupid half-assed point that fallout 4 is worse or some other nonsense.

Well, those 7 years are Todd's own words. Hard to dispute.

And if OPs correct, then he did specifically say that those quests did NOT count radiant quests.

And let's not forget that 99% of FO4 quests are "Go here, kill that, come back" quests. Not much creativity there.

FO 4 have plenty more radiant quests, but they often points at the same places. We could have more quests releated to the "glowing sea" where you need to think twice before you enter.

Cheers,

-Klevs

I've been taking a bit of a break from playing FO4 and have been playing Skyrim for the past few days. I don't know which games has more quests or more things to do, but I do know that I'm in no danger of running out of either on either game. However, being that my Skyrim game is so recent, it does at least have the feeling of having a vast quantity of quests compared to FO4 because there are more quest hubs. Not only is every major city a quest hub, but also all the minor ones as well as some of the orc strongholds. FO4 quests aren't always so obvious and are more hidden in various places, so I'm thinking that if there were more areas that worked as quest hubs *as well as* the hidden quests, there would be less confusion over which game has more content.

I'm suspecting that going by quests *only*, then Skyrim has more, but I think TES in general (starting with Morrowind) has had more than the first-person Fallout games.

I can agree with that, Skyrim's quests were more spread out across the map overall, maybe a bit more "suprise" quests as well, like the Daedric ones.

Even though FO4 and skyrim quest are more or less simmilar, a lot of people expected more in FO4 not less.

I don't know where those years developing come from. Sure, they started doing concept art and stuff for Fallout 4 back when they were finishing up with Fallout 3, but they didn't start actively developing it until they finished with Skyrim. In fact, they said the very first thing they did when they started working on Fallout 4 was to port Skyrim to the new consoles so they could get familiar with them.

As to Skyrim's development time, you can bet your patookus that they started doing concept art for Skyrim long before they started actually developing it as well. You think Skyrim wasn't on the drawing boards while they were working on Fallout 3?

There just seems to be a wee bit of dishonesty in inflating Fallout 4 dev time and lowballing Skyrim's when comparing the two games content. Besides, many of those Skyrim 'quests' were non-quest errands like Farengar asking you to deliver frost salts to Arcadia.

In your opinion.

I found Skyrim's quests much more fun than the FO4 radiant ones.

And this is the point I am trying to make.

IMHO they should try to improve their quest design in general, no matter whether Elder Scrolls or Fallout.

Go to a dungeon and kill with a horribly clunky and awful sword fighting system vs go to a dungeon and kill with a decent enough shooting system.

Neither are great, but I know which one I would prefer doing.

It would be good enough if they just remember how quest were done in TES and Fallout before Skyrim came out.

If I recall correctly, I remember Todd saying that they spent 2 years or something working on the Dragons in Skyrim.

I seriously hope this is not true, cause that would just be sad as hell.

At least it's an improvement over the F3 and its 20 quests

This^

In another Thread there was a Discuss about old Games and Communication between NPC's and that Fallout 4 has none or atleast i really dont know one atm. The Point is this Game is maybe an improvement in comparison with Fallout 3, in some Cases i heard, but what about in general? Is it good for a Game to have less Quests than the previous Game of that Company while those Quests didnt got better in any Way or other improvements? That is my personal Point. Fallout 4 is for me just a post-apocalyptic Skyrim. In many Ways even more worse. Is this an good Evolution of Bethesda?

I got hundreds of hours out of each game, I'm nowhere NEAR done with F4, and the only reason I stopped playing Skyrim is that my 360 blew up.

The # of quests is somewhat irrelevant, if not outright misleading. F4 has more repeatable quests, and settlements (a HUGE part of F4 for many) can provide many, MANY hours of gaming but don't count as "quests" per sé.

Clearly your game is bugged to hell. There is a crazy amount of interaction between NPCS in Fallout 4. Really the only game where NPCS barely if ever interacted was New Vegas.

Fallout 3 had fewer quests than Oblivion. Also there is nothing wrong with having fewer quests when the company improved on other important aspects like storytelling, NPCS, gameplay which all their games in the past were criticized to hell for. If you are questioning if this is good evolution for Bethesda I would say its great only improvement they need is to ditch the Bioware crap dialogue system and make quest the way they were before Skyrim.

I think i just dont remember them i guess.

Don't your companions ever interact with NPCS?

Hell Nick, Hancock and Preston do it way to much in my opinion.

Nah forget it, its all ok. Companions have much different Dialog and i like it.

Edit:

I mean Dialogs between Settlers are rare. They only talk to me but not to each other. No Smalltalk you know?