insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result

You know what, at this point in time I'd be fine with a Fallout Scrolls. Trouble is, FO4 doesn't even feel like a BGS game to me. The beauty of TES has always been about exploring an epic overworld and suddenly chancing upon one of a seemingly endless supply of huge dungeons that feel almost like self-contained games. In FO4 there is an abundance of points of interest, but they're mostly small, uninspired buildings that throw the 'end chest' at you much too soon, or they're towns with a ton of boarded up houses, or a copy-pasted overpass. It makes the commonwealth feel like a miniaturized BGS world.

I think BGS is simply understaffed for making games with the epic scope they're known for, with next-gen quality. Something had to give, and to make up for it they implemented the terraria features.

Depends on what your preference. If you prefer the classic Fallouts, obviously you are going to dislike Bethesda's Fallouts. If you enjoy Bethesda's games though, then you would enjoy Bethesda's Fallouts just fine.

The classic ones and Bethesda's ones are two different types of games, which is how it should be. One developer should never try to copy another developer's work, as most likely they'll do a terrible job at doing so. Instead, the new developers owning said product should do their own thing with said product (while still doing so in a respectable manner).

Almost level 31 walked into Diamond City for the first time tonight. Turned the game off. The role playing part is not there. I knew if I went to Diamond city I would hate it. There is more Fallout out in the waste.

That's the thing, there's a segment of the population who dislikes whatever Bethesda makes and can't get over the fact the IP belongs to them now. They would rather bankrupt Interplay still have the IP rights and be allowed to make that godawful MMO that would have destroyed the Fallout franchise even harder than anything they accuse Bethesda of doing, just 'cause they were the creators of "the real Fallout"

There are only 2 things that I wish Fallout 4 had, the old dialog system and the various endings that Fallout 1, Fallout 2, and New Vegas had.

Fallout, like every other thing that exists in this world, is not for everyone. There is nothing wrong with not liking Fallout because it is not your thing and expressing opinion. However, insulting people because they like something you hate is extremely low.

With the same engine, same in game models, same quality textures, same animations, same gameplay mechanics, tons of other reused assets from Skyrim, you really going to question OPs claim that the game feels like Skyrim? 40% of it IS Skyrim, the same tree , the same lighting and shaders etc. It would be wierd to say it feels different.

That being said, the game is good, addicting. The only real drawback is that they removed the advlt content that made first Fallouts so popular and different from other games back in the day. It is ironic how it is rated for advlts, while basically being Disney censored. The only reason is the unnecessary gore, while the quality advlt content that adds to the plot and immersion is not there.

Want to make a cheap move and do a mod for Skyrim and call it Fallout 4, fine. But removing the only thing that defines the game, not fine. That is the reason people complain, because not only visuals and mechanics are taken from their fantasy game, but even plot. You are still a hero that kills a dragon.

Yeah, in Tactics there was a "pet deathclaw", and Fallout 2 had Gorris.

It's not really a logical conclusion to say "If you like potatoes, obviously you're gonna dislike rice or pasta." If anything, New Vegas proved that there is a route hidden somewhere in the thick bush to make this new approach work to at least somewhat satisfactory degree. NV wasn't quite "there" but it was well on its way.

If the intent is to make something completely different, getting someone else's IP to do that and still call it a sequel is the worst course of action by comparison to making a thing of your own from scratch.

Hummm, no. It's not "whatever" they make, but "what they have" made. Everybody's... "gotten over" the IP ownership, and absolutely nobody wants Interplay to take over anything.

What about Troika?

I drink for the memory and the prospects it had. What I meant was that everybody understands Bethesda owns things now.

In that case they play an dangerous game and might fast run into the Dragon Age 2 effect.

In short in DA2 they did a lot of changes from DA:O to appeal to an broader audience, problem was that this pissed off the fans from DA:O a lot and they told everybody the game was worse than ET or Superman 64. End result was that the game sold worse than DA:O.

Having DA2 as an standalone game not connected to DA:O in any way would worked better as it wold not have the hate.

The Jet'll do that to ya.

My only serious negative thing about Fallout 4 is the dialogue wheel and the much more shallow dialogues we get.

Interesting it makes dialogues far more slow paced than previous games even if less dialogue as you has to listen to yourself then the npc.

But I agree the game-play mechanisms are closer to Skyrim than Fallout 3. TES has always had pretty linear quests, yes you are sometimes able to persuade or bribe you past part of quests or even select ending as in letting the thief run away or not but Fallout 3 had lots of branching in quests. In Fallout 4 this is mostly about who main factions you support.

The legendary system would fit far better in TES than in Fallout, no I like the system better than the fixed artifacts in Fallout 3 / NV but I agree it don't fit.

Fallout 4 is Super Mario World, Contra, Jenga, Parcheesi, Turner & Hooch, cell mitosis, the color indigo, and an existential question with weird guns and radiation.

FO4 is as 'fallout' as the rest. Its nothing like any other game. I'm still unsure if it beats NV as my favourite, not being from the us, I find it hard to identify with Boston. That is the only negative for me.

I'ma be honest... New Vegas and Fallout 4 are very similar except for a few small extra features (Like New Vegas's annoying ammo crafting system and Fallout 4's settlement system), Fallout 4's improvements, and Fallout 4's disappointing dialogue system. (Talking about New Vegas without DLCs mind you. I won't compare New Vegas's DLCs to Fallout 4 until Fallout 4's DLCs are all out).

People like to say that New Vegas is this great RPG similar to the originals but it is very much like Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 in many ways. Except, back before Fallout 4 came out, it was superior in many ways to Fallout 3 (especially story) but now with Fallout 4... It's really not and the two are quite similar. I literally thought a lot of more New Vegas fans would enjoy Fallout 4 but then I remember... People are gonna complain about the removal or change of anything, despite how bad or annoying it really was to the majority of the players.

I would say this though, Bethesda is doing a great job with Fallout because they are still keeping to the Fallout theme and lore. They are being respectful to the previous games and also keeping the game's content. They are doing much better job than the people doing Battlefront. (Dear god, I can understand changing how the game plays, due to doing their own thing, but at least be respectful to the original's content and keep that). Though, then again, the biggest issue is that with Battlefront, it's still the same FPS game... With Fallout, it's a completely different type of RPG from the originals so a lot of the changes are to be expected but still, Bethesda is doing a good job at respecting the franchise and originals. They just don't make RPGs like the originals.

Do you see the problem with your statements?

Also, do you remember any other Fallout game that had gimped dialogues, voiced protagonist, minecrafty base-building? I don't think you do. Fallout 3 was close, and even that was called too much of a detour because of its obvious focus on exploration.

I don't think you get the idea.

Fallout 4 is as Fallout as any other Fallout game due to the theme, which is true. The theme of all of the games are still pretty much the same. So Fallout 4 is a Fallout game just fine.

Ah, the "universe defines a franchise" argument again. You know, I'm kinda tired of it, so let's just call Shelter, Tactics and BOS main entries to the series and "as Fallout as the rest" and be happy. \o/

In my mind, NV's biggest strengths were dialogue and quests, which are FO4's biggest weaknesses. Compare the quest in Goodsprings to the one in Concord (or any quest, if you think this comparison is unfair), and you'll see the difference. One of them has choices and skill checks, the other one has power armor.

They aren't main entries but they are still Fallout games mate. There's a difference between being a main entry and being part of the "universe", as you put it.

Main entries are just the games that follow suit after one and another, following the game's storyline or world's progression.

Except they don't, which is the point why so many people say something along the lines of "It's a good open world game, meh RPG, rubbish Fallout".

I agree that the difference between Fallout 3 and NV is overblown. NV is an Fallout 3 total conversion with better quests, factions and dialogues and some new features mostly ideas from mods. main downside is an more boring world.

Fallout 4 goes the other way with quests outside of the main faction quest in that its more linear like TES quests. Note that this is an choice, one problem with many options in quests is that they are more time consuming to create and far harder to test. Result is fewer quest. Now the idiot dialogue wheel do massive damage to story, one issue is that if you select wrong you will miss the entire story behind the quest as this option goes away

And yes Fallout 4 is Fallout, an strategy game set in the Fallout universe would also be fallout.

I would agree that NV's biggest strength was dialogue but not quests. Same thing with FO4's. The quests in both games are mixed... There are quite a bit of alternative ways to finish (or fail) quests in both New Vegas and Fallout 4. Plus a lot of the quests in both games primarily only focus on one choice.

The Goodspings quest I would compare to the Covenant quest. In the Covenant quest, you end up having a choice to side with the town of the Covenant or side with the guy who is trying to find the missing caravan. (Or you can just kill them all). Siding with guy and saving the missing caravan person causes the Covenant to be aggressive toward you. Goodsprings plays similar. You side with either the town or the outsider person/group OR just kill both of them and be done with it.

Also, Fallout 4's four main factions are way much better and more interesting than New Vegas's four main factions.