No, you are not the only one. I am not feeling it yet either.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Just because some value change in one aspect of the game doesn't mean they think change should occur everywhere and vice versa.

You make it sound like it's just self-contradicting discontent for it's own sake.

I'm loving the colors..Colors at last!

Believe me, I'm as skeptical of Fallout 4 as the next guy, but what you're talking about isn't the story. It's the setting and the character. Fallout and Fallout 3 also had you as a vault dweller. I agree that it's getting old, but 'exploring the wasteland' is a terrible summery of the story for both of those games. In Fallout, you're a vault dweller who leaves to find a water chip for his vault, and gets tangled up against the Master and his mutants during this journey. In 3, you're a kid who's driven from his vault and has to find his Da. The water and Enclave stuff that comes next is definitly unoriginal, but that's the story. Not exploring the wasteland. This game has you as a pre-war vault dweller who leaves the vault and does... We don't know yet. There will be exploring like in every game, but that ain't the story. That's the point I'm making. I definitely agree that New Vegas was nice in that it didn't rehash the vault dweller stuff, and overall it is my favorite in the series.

Dogmeat in Fallout 3 was a block compared to the much more 'alive' one that we've seen in 4. And for a dog, yes, I'd say that fetching wrenches and pulling down enemies is a big improvement from what we had. Doesn't mean that the others will be good. All that I was saying was that what little we've seen is better than Fallout 3. I'm not going to hold my breath for them being New Vegas level, but I can't see them being as bad as 3. I agree on him being unkillable though. I hate that.

I am really only undeerwhelmed by how little of the game they have actually talked about/shown off. But if it avoids perpetuating the "Todd is a lair" meme, I can deal with it.

Most of the changes or additions I am happy about, and the few changes I am meh about, such as the VA and stimpacks healing over time, have yet to give me any reason to assume they will be terrible.

I'm hyped for Fallout 4, only thing I'm worried about is the writing. I hope that is improved from Skyrim or else it's going to be a very long winter.

It's funny, after my first play through I tend to mod the hell out of my game and from then on my modded game becomes the new norm and I tend to forget what is modded and what is vanilla. For example, I would have been willing to swear that stimpaks healing over time was in the last games, but I guess that was mods at work.

Stimpaks healed over time in NV if you were on hardcoe mode, but not on any of the normal modes, as they apparently do in Fo4.

Yeah, that's how I play too, lol. Don't really remember what a lot of games felt like Vanilla.

I'm kinda miffed at Beth for refusing to show any gameplay. The only other game I'm really hyped over (for this year anyway) is XCom 2 which is looking much sixier. Emphasis on looks. Cuz the devs actually shows us stuff to get hyped over. Instead of keeping everything so utterly mum.

I'm following XCOM2 also, but I haven't see a lot of real game-play footage. Some scripted game-play using the game engine, but not real game-play yet.

Honestly not sure yet if I'll get FO4 or wait a week or so and get XCOM2.

We don't know squat about the story which is 75% of the meat of Fallout... It's like you have read the publishers blurb of a book and called it underwhelmingactually without reading the book itself.

Then there is the exploration factor... I freakin LOVE exploring in Fallout. For example when I found the *BLLLEEEP* and there was *BLEEP* with a load of *BLEEP* that nearly messed me up... but I *BLLEEEEPED* the *BLEEP* instead and got away.

You don't have to play a game to have an opinion on the features being showcased. BGS is clearly showing us what they believe to make Fallout 4 worth our time and money. My point is while some of these new features are great and have been wanted for years, the game still largely resembles its predecessor that released seven years ago. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but Fallout 3 was far from perfect. Many of the concept were phenomenal, but execution was lacking in a lot of areas. BGS has always always struggled particularly with gameplay. At the very least, we know shooting won't be a subpar experience this time around hopefully. Who knows about the rest.

I think Boston is too close the Washington, D.C. I understand the interest in exploring the Institute, but New Vegas was a nice departure showing us an entirely different area of the country with a drastically different culture. I'm not sure what you mean specifically about "so many icons from the West." Are you referring to the setting being in post-war United States?

I would rephrase it and say many of my "personal gripes" are more to do with features that could use some major overhauls. It's 2015 and we can't even get a proper mount in Fallout 4? The vertibird doesn't even count. I mean a motorcycle. A car. Something. We've had mounts in TES since Oblivion was released in early 2006. I don't see why vehicles aren't practical to achieve in Fallout. We know the map will be large. I've always felt VATS was a gimmick made to try and appeal to fans of Fallout 1 and 2. I like some aspects of VATS, but it was relied on far too heavily in Fallout 3. BGS is trying to get away from it a bit with Fallout 4, but I would have liked to have seen VATS be more so a tool for compiling data on enemies rather than just turning the game into a semi turn-based game of numbers.

My point is there were several areas that Fallout 3 failed in that I'm not really sure are being adequately addressed. Story is definitely being addressed, as it was atrocious in Fallout 3. Companions? We'll see. A slightly smarter dog doesn't really do much for me, given how infamously stupid Radiant AI is. I'm expecting companions that are about as useful as they were in Skyrim. In other words, they will be there as merely inventory space and nothing else.

I understand how a voiced PC is an immersion breaker for some, but it does lead to a weaker story. It makes it harder for the developers to write something compelling when they have no idea what the PC is actually saying or how he/she feels. That's why every main questline in a BGS game for the past 13 years has been underwhelmingly bad. There are plenty of recent examples of RPGs with voiced characters that have led to great stories. It only makes sense that BGS would follow suit. Remember, story is one small component of what will still be largely dominated by the BGS sandbox. That is where the majority of the experience will be.

I'm curious to see how this streamlining of perks work and I'm concerned that settlements and raider attacks may just be a gimmick that gets old after a few times. I'm hoping crafting is more than just purely cosmetic, otherwise that would be a major letdown.

I don't believe I ever stated "I hate" Fallout 4. I'm currently underwhelmed by what I've seen. I'm still going to buy the game. In my personal opinion, a sequel should be more than just the last game with prettier graphics. I'm not interested in Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed. This isn't a Hollywood film where Avengers 6 is coming out. When I want to play the next installment of a franchise, I want to know I'm not buying a game I played six years ago.

That's not to say I want the entire BGS sandbox thrown out the window. Not at all. BGS is my favorite developer and I love their open world sandbox games. What I do want to see, however, is innovation. This is something BGS has historically done a lot of, which is part of the reason they are so popular and famous. Their games literally do things no other game does. However, the competition is catching up and less things are keeping BGS games distinct from others.

They've made some great additions to Fallout 4. My question is is there enough innovation here?

Let me correct myself then. The setting and background to the game are strikingly similar. I cannot determine whether the story is similar or not, other than it deals with a vault dweller leaving his/her vault. I just prefer something a bit more different. New Vegas was a major departure yet kept the feel and tone of Fallout. Fallout 4 just seems a bit too close to Fallout 3, even in location.

From the perspective of only BGS games, it's an improvement. From the perspective of other RPGs or games with companions in the industry, I wouldn't really say it's something to brag about. I'll be honest, I won't be surprised if a majority of players pass up the dog for one of the other companions that will likely be more useful. Picking up items I could pick up or bothering an NPC is hardly something I'd consider to be a major change in gameplay.

There's not enough info about the game for me to be underwhelmed yet.

The fact that they have a voiced protagonist this go around at the very least says BGS is more serious about their storytelling. A more developed main character can lead to a more compelling story. It's hard to write a good story when the main character doesn't have a voice and cannot provide any input.

I find it odd with the game coming out around the corner they are still withholding so much gameplay. They don't need to spoil the game. It would just be nice to actually see the game in action. Sadly we'll probably have to wait for the game to be released before we really know what it's ultimately about.

We know you are a vault dweller. We know you are now trying to survive. We know it takes place in Boston, which isn't that far removed from Washington, D.C. There is going to be a bit of overlap. How much? We shall see. Rumor had it years ago that the VA for Three Dog was going to reprise his role. There may be more Fallout 3 in Fallout 4 than many realize.

We've seen gameplay. We know the major new features and improvements. We know the basic story and how the game begins. What else do you want?

Nope, I'm going to spend an unhealthy amount of time playing it. Anyone that expected them not to use mechanics from fo3 (that worked) is delusional. I really can't think of many sequels that didn't use a good amount of the previous game's mechanics. FO4 upgraded some of the more complained about things of the previous games (gunplay and graphics). And others we don't even really know about (story and other fo3 fallshorts). Beth would really have to butcher the game for me not to love it honestly. FO3 is likely my most played game ever

Now this, I agree with. Yes, New Vegas was a very welcome departure, and I'd also prefer more Fallout games that don't rely on the vault as an intro. Especially because it feels too much like the 'prisoner intro' that has become classic for TES.

Yeah, I agree, it's nothing revolutionary. But how much more can you expect from a dog?

My expectations weren't unrealistically high enough for me to be underwhelmed. On the other hand, undesirable features like the voiced protagonist has dampened some (but not all) of the enthusiasm that I would have otherwise had so I'm not exactly overwhelmed, either.

How was VATS relied on heavily? It was an option (when your AP were recharged) that you could use or not. Honestly, I only use it rarely.

I've seen comments like this before, but.... what was wrong with the shooting in Fallout 3? I didn't really have any problems with it. Of course, I'm no connoisseur of shooters, so....

I'll be passing up the dog for.... no companion. I really dislike having a companion underfoot in Beth games, they just get in the way. When I want to play "group" games, I'll play something from Bioware or one of the retro-isometric party-based games. Beth games, to me, are single-character experiences. (Which is why I was a bit annoyed by the companions in New Vegas - they tied decent chunks of content to them, so I felt somewhat forced to put up with them or skip out on part of the game.)

Personally I'm excited for the game. Admittadly though I would rather have ES 6 but Fallout's better than nothing.

Call of Duty gets disparaged for repetition, yet Fallout 4 gets praised for it

Without sounding fatalistic, i'm treating this as the denouement of what can be reasonably considered a Fallout game.

I'm hankering for improved writing and an improved mainstory, with substantive choices and consequence.But from what I've seen so far Fallout 4 presages ultimately a path I no longer wish to endeavor, even if at present it may just be palatable.

I've said this point a superfluity of times, but the series is at a crossroads with Fallout 4, between advancing what New Vegas did well and what Fallout 3/Skyrim did well.There's nothing to implicit that Fallout 4 is going to be a combination of the above, or that it's going to Fallow only what I wish was the seminal footsteps of New Vegas.To many fans delight we are going to get experiences more redolent of Skyrim than the latter.I'm not only disappointed with Fallout 4, but with the series under Bethesda's superintendence.

I hope, I long even to be wrong, but I might just be right

Call of Duty gets hated on for coming out with a game every single year, and offering nothing new in most of them.

Its been like what? 5 years since a Fallout game, and Fallout 4 is offering penty of new systems like settlement building. Its not the same at all.

Well who isn't? Especially with mods? I spent probably 500+ hours just modding Skyrim alone. I'm sure I'll do just as much, if not more with Fallout 4. Supposedly it has 400+ hours of content just in the vanilla game. We'll see if that's true or not.

This is obviously a Fallout game. Of course BGS will reuse mechanics and features from previous installments. My point is some of these features that were ignored probably could have been improved further. As far as a franchise that has been revolutioned with each installment, just look at The Witcher. It's absolutely crazy how much that franchise changed from TW1 to TW2 to TW3. I don't think any game has evolved as much in virtually every way. None of the games are really similar gameplay wise besides recurring characters.

Gun mechanics had to be upgraded. Even BGS admitted they were horrendous. An upgrade in graphics are a standard for any new game. We know story has been upgraded with a voiced protagonist which had been rumored for years and confirmed to be true. We can debate whether that is truly an "upgrade" or not, but it certainly changes the dynamic of storytelling.

I think Fallout 4 is going to be a solid game. I just wonder if they have innovated on their sandbox enough this time around. In my opinion, I think BGS is being a little safe. Settlements were pretty obvious given their experiment with Hearthfire. Crafting being overhauled made sense based on rhetoric Todd used in the past for where BGS wanted it to go. I wouldn't really say anything BGS is doing is a "shock" in other words. It just made sense.

Exactly. The prisoner intro is something near and dear to my heart with TES. It's not something BGS should replicate with FO. It was fine for FO3 and probably FO4, but I think they could do some other more compelling things different from TES.

That's very true, which is why I'm somewhat on the fence of whether BGS should even waste resources on making a dog companion. I understand the tradition and people like having a dog companion, but it really just doesn't add a lot from a gameplay perspective in my eyes. The dog will just be a less useful Lydia that I will probably have collecting dust in a settlement before too long.

I'm just used to BGS having a bit more surprises with their reveals. With Oblivion, we had the infamous Radiant AI E3 presentation. With Fallout 3 at E3, we saw the dynamic, variety, and depth in gameplay. With Skyrim we got shouts and dynamic dragon fights. Fallout 4 we just have an actual crafting system now, a voiced protagonist, which is probably the biggest departure, better gun controls, and player housing which has always technically been in these games. We just could not physically build our own homes without mods.

VATS was more reliable for killing than the poor shooter mechanics in Fallout 3. Especially if you wanted to cripple certain body parts or force enemeis to drop weapons, the terrible FPS controls were just not practical compared to VATS.

Fallout 3 shooting is HORRIBLE. There's no other way to describe it. You can't even aim really. The screen just zooms slightly. There is no aiming down sights. The controls are clunky. NPCs have you at a disadvantage. VATS is just the rational mode of combat in many cases. Fallout 4 revamping shooter mechanics was MANDATORY. At least we know ex-Bungie devs (Halo) and id (Doom, Quake, Rage) are involved to help BGS clean up the gameplay.

This is my point. Companions are historically bad in BGS games. Radiant AI is horrendous. They block you. They aren't helpful. They are nothing but meatbags waiting to get in your way. If BGS hasn't overhauled Radiant AI in Fallout 4 from Skyrim, I think many will likely avoid them altogether. You have to admit the companions in NV were at least done well (BGS didn't make NV either). Not to mention the faction system was extremely well-executed. Please tell me that is going to be in Fallout 4...