Yeah the launch was really bad for me... I had a bug in the main quest that forced be to restart my first character that I'd put 40 hours into :/

Apart from that it went smoothly for me.

I'm not insulted, because I don't even own the game. I'm just saying try to put yourself in others shoes and think how your words might be misinterpreted.

Well, complains from classic Fallout fans about F3 are doubly applicable with F4, so it's not surprising they're being repeated. BGS's games hold true to Hines' "there are no sacred pillars when developing games". They're good in their own, but they "betray the spirit" of the series, so to speak. I can't express it less melodramatically, sorry

Of course I'm not saying the games should be as iterative as F2 was in comparison with F1, but removing core values is something I hate when it comes to games, technology, whatever. I didn't even mind (well at first moment I did, but that was a short moment) the switch from isometric turn-based combat to FPS because I didn't consider combat to be an integral part of Fallout. Wasteland, now that was something a little different.

I also understand that something as complex and lacking hold-handing as Fallout 2 is wouldn't sell well today. Not as well as an open world FPS with base-building anyway. But that won't stop me from wanting it and raging every time they move further from it, will it? The internet is full of variations of "It's a decent open world game, meh RPG, bad Fallout" for a reason and I don't think it's just some hate train.

It would be waste of time and resources if they would make less money than they put in. That was clearly not the case for F# nor F:NV. But it's truth that people are money and power hungry and many would risk a lot just to gain even more power and money, even tho they are perfectly fine. I'm not saying Bethesda is same, but you know...

Well, for one you could play evil character, you had a lot of evil choices and dialogue. You don't even have karma system in F4. You also had other unique dialogues depends how much points you had in certain skills like Intelligence for example. You were also more restricted what kind of character you will play skill wise, because of level cap and skills restrictions. There are no skills in F4 and there is no level cap. I gave you two examples, there are more.

Karma system are more constraints on choices you make. If you need a system to tell you when you are evil or not, then you are not really roleplaying, you are letting the system tell you. I had plenty of moments in Fallout 4 that made me stop and think over what i'd done and made me feel something, regret even. That is more impactful to me then some system telling me i am either good or bad. Its a grey world, as our world is and that is how it should be in a game like this.

I was in others shoes many times, when I started playing a game that was not first in it's franchise and old veterans or fans were complaining it was dumbed down. I wasn't insulted even slightest, that would make no sense, for being insulted because other people have their opinions on game and don't like it. All that mattered to me that I liked it, so good for me. That's like being insulted because some people say fallout 4 is too easy.

Fallout 1 and 2 were great games with lots of re-playability, choices that mattered, and over the top violence and humor. Fallout 3 changed a lot but the addition of FPS aspects and open world exploration gave a huge amount of possibility. New Vegas took what was good about Fallout 3 and brought back a lot of the elements that made Fallout 1 and 2 such great games. New Vegas had the detailed dialogues, choices with consequences, multiple factions, reputations, karma, ammo types and re-loading, weapon mods, logical well designed firearms.

People expect great things from Fallout because people really enjoy the franchise and their have been several really great games in the series and all have been good.

Instead we get Fallout 4. Simple dumbed down dialogue (if the special snowflake generation can't handle this truth they need to go cry in their safe space ), random magic loot from legendary mobs reminiscent of Diablo, firearms with no logical thought put into their design other than "wow that's cool' and a multitude of other design choices that all cater to the lowest common denominator.

Fallout 4 is a great financial success and is a fun game but it fails at carrying on the Fallout legacy. maybe mods can fix it or maybe Obsidian will get a shot at making another Fallout.

You can let your settlement get destroyed by raiders or you can let your settlement starve and settlers won't care. So yeah, you need a system, otherwise you can roleplay all you want but if npcs don't responds to it, it just looks dumb and breaks immersion.

I did not had to buy a new card for this game. It works fine on Ultra and I assembled my custom PC a few years ago.

And that's why most people like FNV more than FO3. Why should anyone like a game which is almost the same but less? There's no reason. That's why I like NV more than FO3, too.

And I simply think that FO4 might become the same as FO3 is. A good game which made the base for a even better game. And maybe, Bethesda can even make this better game themselve and don't need to let Obsidian do it.

Or even better, they improve FO4 with the upcomming DLCs as much as possible, by adding in new features or features from NV. I heard some people say that Bethesda might have avoided taking too much "inspiration" from NV, because it wasn't made by themselves. I say, "I don't care if it wasn't their idea in the first place. Just give me a hardcoe mode already!"

Basically everything beeing criticised (except the dialogue wheel) can be improved with updates and DLCs.

That, and Obsidian got rid of that damn green tint Fo3 had... glad Bethesda didn't bring it back for Fo4.

that is your opinion and not fact, for me Fallout 4 is a great addition to the game, adding alot of stuff the game was missing. U want us to think that what u said is true but the true is just your opinion.

i was speaking more like, a Faction system that was broken as hell since all factions are independent from the main plot(no meter if u do or no do a faction or no the ending of the main quest are the same) the only real use for the faction was getting Exalted reputation for weapons or armor, a karma system that was easy to move around just killing Ghouls

A hard-core mode that become irrelevant after 10m from staring the game?

A game arsenal with little distinction between each weapon making alot of the weapons the same with different ammo and skins. A ammo system that become irrelevant too, bc enemies can get kill by any type of ammo so crafting or buy a different it just make it a little more easy.

Ppl speak about freedom to be who ever u want to be but i spend 4 DLC learning about my background (so it was pre define) and the DLC story feel super disconnect from the main problem that was the imminent 2 war over the dam. Lets no speak about the 0 personality companions that have 0 interaction with the world that they live in.

So yeah NV add more "skill" checks on dialogues, but that was preatty much it. Some of the quest lines make 0 senses on how u solve it bc of those checks like the one on the main quest where u go to Cesar and he preatty much let u in, in his main base w/o u ever been prove if u are a loyal to him.

But opinions are opinions =P

But they replaced it with orange one for that western feel

My keyboard is mostly working better now, so I can type this up for ya peoples here... (I need a new keyboard).

Fallout 4 is easily one of Bethesda's best RPGs to date, despite the voiced protagonist and whacky dialogue system. Even better than New Vegas, dare I say. The only thing that Fallout 3 and New Vegas has over 4 is really just the better dialogue system. (Discounting New Vegas's lack of essential characters simply because it doesn't really do too awful much. I'll say something about the essential status a bit later on in this post).

Probably the first thing we all have noticed in Fallout 4 is the voiced protagonist and the protagonist's backstory. The latter doesn't do anything except effect the main questline while the former is a bit more iffy. The voiced protagonist ordeal is easily a double-edged blade. When it works for a character that one has in mind, it's pretty dang good and amazing... But if it doesn't suit the character very well, then we have a problem. There's also the vast amount of opinions of the voices in general. So in the end, I do agree that Bethesda shouldn't have done it but it's still awesome to have at times as well because it suits a good handful of characters and allows more immersive and character bonding. As for the backstory... The only piece of the backstory that effects your character in the long run is the son and Cogsworth. Otherwise, your spouse is dead and everything you have done in the past means NOTHING in the Commonwealth. Meaning, you have a chance to start another life and mold the character into your own eyes as you play, and it's handled pretty well honestly, like always.

As for the leveling system... Both Fallout 4's and Skyrim's level system is honestly what a leveling system should be. I am not joking. You can complain about the "removal" of skills in Fallout 4 all you wish but the truth is... Skills are still in Fallout 4. They are just part of the perk system now, so they never got removed. What GOT removed was that "1 - 100" idea for skills, which was TERRIBLE idea for this kind of RPG game that Bethesda does. The older system breaks immersion and roleplay experience very easily because it forces you to increase your skills, no matter what, and in many cases... All, if not most, of your characters will end up with 100 in each skill with only one or two having around 50 - 80. You can literally have a character with 1 Intelligence hacking an Master Enclave Terminal because he had 100 Science... How is that NOT character breaking? Fallout 4's leveling system worked in a much better way which it both respects your character and allows him to grow natural in the world, without ever breaking the character. It also balances out the character so that he, or she, is never a god in the game world. Being "godlike" is an easy way for immersive breaking... Especially in the Fallout universe. The character creation was also both improved and balanced out. Instead of having 40 SPECIAL points, you only have 28. (Again, due to balancing and even allowing better creation of a character instead of possibly going the all 5+ route that I bet most people did do).

Now story wise? Fallout 3's story was honestly pretty terrible so it wasn't hard for Fallout 4 to beat it. But since people love comparing it to New Vegas's "grand story"...
New Vegas - A fetch quest which ends up the player making a choice between four major factions that would end up effecting what happens to the Mojave Wasteland.

Fallout 4 - A missing child quest which ends up the player making a choice between four major factions that would end up effecting what happens to the Commonwealth.

They are literally the same really except for what your character starts looking for. Only difference is, finding your son is probably more urgent then finding the guy who attempted to kill you and is taking your job. That and New Vegas also has more minor factions and forced them into the main story. Fallout 4 kept it's minor factions from the main story and there isn't as many. Now, which game actually treated the main story better? That's harder to decide. Both stories has it's ups and downs... New Vegas does some things better while Fallout 4 does others better. Also, I'll honestly take Kellog over Benny any day (mostly because Kellog at least gets character development and is more of a threat) but that's just my personal opinion.

As for the endings... The reason Fallout 4 probably doesn't have any ending slides like New Vegas does is because the game hasn't ended yet or because Bethesda doesn't want the game to truly have an ending. If the former is correct, then we'll probably get ending slides at the ending of the final DLC for Fallout 4 which might go through everything (which sounds like a cool idea). Either way though, the ending slides don't do too much for the actual roleplay experience anyways. Just lets you know what will happen because of your actions...

Now, a quick thing about the Essential status that I've noticed... Discounting people who will lose their essential status when they are hostile to you, the only people who are truly permanently essential (from what I've noticed) are important NPCs for the mainquest (mostly the Minuteman, probably because the Minuteman is the only faction you cannot become enemies with which makes sense. You need to be allied with at least one major faction), companions, and are important NPCs for the companions' personal quests (which is only like a few more). So honestly, complaining about the essential ordeal is kinda stupid. Heck, I tested it and killed everyone in Diamond City except for the Mayor, kids, and Piper. Kids are invincible by default no matter what, for obvious reasons, while the Mayor is killable later on anyways. This is even including all of the NPCs in town who has quests connected to them... That's way much better than Skyrim's MASS amount of essential NPCs...

However, there seems to be a lot more Protected NPCs, which was something that fans suggested for Skyrim. Protected NPCs, like the Settlers, cannot be killed by other NPCs. They can still be killed by the player though... Which I feel is alright. It keeps random attacks from making people upset while truly allowing the player being able to kill said people themselves, if they so wish it... Also, Dogmeat is invincible to player damage, which is why he cannot get angry at you... You cannot even hurt him, just like the kids. But it's only to your damage.

Anyways, I think I've hit some of the major topics about Fallout 4 now. If I missed anything, let me know. Well except for the dialogue system. We all know that it isn't that good. (However, it isn't completely bad either).

Well I couldn't play an evil character in Ultima 7 either, so I don't really care about evil choices and dialog, but I am somehow managing to roleplay very well in Fallout 4 without being forced into a constraining dialog path with an even more constraining karma system. If you really miss having a karma system though, then take along one of the companions who doesn't seem to like anything you do. You will see plenty of messages about so-and-so not liking that, and you will have your ears full of vocal complaints as well whenever you do something that companion thinks is "bad".

Also, since I'm actually playing Fallout 4, I find myself pausing for a much longer time to choose the one perk I'm allowed than I ever did in any of the previous Fallout games, including the first two. True, there is no level cap, but outside of someone on the PC using console commands to cheat levels, how many people are realistically going achieve over 270 levels to get all of the perks? In Fallout 3 and NV, I had practically every skill at the levels I needed by level 10 or so. Currently, it's an agonizing choice between taking another fun perk related to settlements or crafting or having to put it into something related to combat.

I actually never noticed an orange tint... but I definitely noticed that green one.

Which companies need to get over. I am kind of tired seeing it in the industry and I have always advocate, that good ideas are not genre bias nor are they bad ideas to add. Bethseda knew FNV did well as a product. They knew people liked it. They should have taken in the idea and done the research of why they liked it.

All Bethseda now is losing people. And I am not talking losing money they have plenty of that from the mass market, but I am talking they are losing the people who love the series in itself. I give Bethseda less crap about F3 because it was their first time taking up the franchise and they would need to create the groundwork for themselves.

But they did exactly what they did in Oblivion to Skyrim from Fallout 3 to Fallout 4.

They stripped every groundwork of something that could have been good, and made a watered down, less imaginative version of the game. Instead of going to the opposite. Oblivion should have been looking at ideas like Witcher and Dragon Age Origins. To make Skyrim even better. I will always say that I did believe Oblivion did the perfect balance of elements for RPG experts and casual gamers.

But the same with Fallout 3 instead of looking at games like Metro and Fallout New Vegas for ideas, they took the completely opposite turn and made another watered down, stripped of its own unique elements Fallout game.

And that's great. If they want to continue making profit. Well you done it.

But you're losing the people who had truly cherished what you made and just getting these vapid shallow believers in a franchise who don't understand what made it, so unique in the first place. And that's how F4 failed as a RPG and succeeded as a product.

how they losing ppl?

i have at least 10 friend that never play fallout and are in love with it. They just win 10 players there. There are more ppl happy about the game that mad about it.

As a joke aside is like ppl [censored]ing on Trade channel on WoW about how they stop playing the game and how wow is dying, and the game have been going for 10 year non stop.

People have passions. Fallout is one of mine. One of many, and next to something like music, literature and film- a minor one sure, but still...a passion. And I don't find it easy to walk away from my passions. Not sure passing judgment on peoples' passions is the coolest thing I've seen somebody do, but whatever. I mean, I get it...since that's how I feel about any other game or series. But I would hope you get it too, being a moderator here.

Did you make it to Freeside?! Funny, though. Railroaded was the exact phrase going on in my head during a Fallout 4 mission about 10 minutes ago. Heh.

A+

I'd rather be bitter and depressed because I'm disappointed in something that could have great rather then ignore those great things, existing and not. And if I want to be that way then that is my choice to make. You don't know what's best for others, nor do you have the right to inform others how they "should" behave. As someone that once foolishly thought best for others I would caution you on that approach. Our emotions, negative and positive, is what makes us who we are, not just happy ones. And bad must exist as well as good. Wherever you take heed of that warning or not is of course for you to decide or not. Attempting to decide for others and acting like I know better never ends well from my experience. Even in the times that I know someone is on a "bad path", they must still walk it, for better or for worse. And often people will walk a bad path knowingly. I know, it's bizarre, but that's how it is.

This.

The only people that Bethesda are losing are people who don't enjoy Bethesda's games. So who cares? Bethesda can extend it's fandom while keeping their fans. From what I've seen, Bethesda has been improving and balancing their games ever since the disappointment of Oblivion. (Oblivion overall was pretty terrible. Shivering Isles was really the only thing that made me play it more so than I did, because I enjoyed SI so much).

re: removing the green tint... And yet, other people complained that F04 "doesn't look like post-apoc" because it doesn't have that destaurated/green tint/dust layer.

re: "they should make it for The True Fans?"..... feh. Catering to the most niche edge of your fanbase is never a good idea. It's why I think that listening to the loudest loudmouths on the forums is a bad idea for most devs. (See: Mass Effect 3's ending being changed due to the "hold the line" idiot brigade. Yes, I thought the ME3 ending was terrible - but buckling under to an internet mob & changing your game because of it? Really bad precedent.)

---

Personally, I prefer FO3 over NV. Yes, NV has some more polished/further developed systems (factions, crafting). But the world itself is boring - exploring the world of FO3 was much more interesting. NV may technically be a "better" game by certain measures, but FO3 was more fun & interesting to play.

And yes, I played FO1 back when it came out. Good game. Still enjoyed FO3, and am enjoying FO4. But, then, I don't get super fanatical about stuff. Good old games I played are just that - good games. I don't devote myself to games as The One True Best Thing that must never be impugned by some other take on it. (Just like I was never the kind of music fan who liked the band's first albums, but then bitterly complained over beers about how they then "sold out", because they didn't fulfill my expectations. /eyeroll)

It's as if you didn't read a single word I read. They aren't losing money, which tends to be the people who are just introduced into the franchise.

They are losing customers like myself, someone and I cannot remember which thread wrote it best, I am a niche market, that most entertainment business doesn't and won't cater to. And this just ins't in video games, it's in movies, and books. I am a niche market, that the entertainment industry is unwilling to put any faith into because it doesn't make them money. Why take the risk, when you can get money from somewhere else.

They are losing people. Not the people they want to market to now, but the people they use to market to.

I have had the opportunity to play Fallout 4 at a friends house, and have not boughten the game. And when I do get the money in I am not going to be buying the game. That's how they are losing people, they lost my dollar and I know that doesn't make much different to them, they are getting someone else's shallow dollar. But losing money, even in the tiniest cracks should be the concern of every industry.

They very obviously didn't make Fallout 4 for Fallout fans because the dialogue is utter crap and choices do not matter. That is what I'm talking about.

Imagine J.K.Rowling coming out and saying she's writing a new Harry Potter book for her fans, but Harry turns out to be a transgender spy for MI6 and everyone decides to use guns instead of wands.

It could end up being an amazing book, but it wouldn't be a good Harry Potter book because it flies in the face of what the Harry Potter represents.