Fallout 4....the disappontment

Honestly the worst part about it was having the player character use voice lines, meaning you could only ever say exactly what they wanted you to say. In Fallout New Vegas you could use numerous speech options and certain modifiers would affect how your speech looked (if you had low intelligence your words would be really dumb). I want Obsidian to do a Fallout game with the new engine but make it good.

>so many witcher 3 fanboyz ....
...and one valiant W3 hater to brave countless hordes of said fanboys xD

>no first person, damn forgot about it, so shit.
No player body in so-called "first person" in F4, so shit. Also please explain how you imagine sword combat with all pirouettes in 1st-person. Oh and btw, why time stops when you start hacking/lockpicking? and where are your hands while you are lockpicking? you aren't a fucking unicorn to move bobby pin and screwdriver with your telekineses. Totally counter-immersive, I'd say.

>then i go into combat and realize who crippled it is.
What do you mean?

>you all stay quest are shit in FO4, I would say quest are shit in W3.
Yeah because they aren't all generic run-there-and-bring-to-me-that-shit-you-find-in-innards-of-slaughtered-enemy-boss type. I understand, sometime you want to just mindlessly follow minimap marker and pewpew left and right, but to call it good?

>The dialogues are crap too
What raics said.

>you cant kill anyone you want
Well I could have agreed on this one if killing essential NCs in F4 leaded to scripted ending screen stating what happened after you killed that NPC (how you failed your quest and what happened to Commonwealth after that). As long as there are NO consequences for killing essential NPCs you can as well make them invulnerable because why the fuck bother.

>game is rigid in its base form
Again, what do you mean?

>modding is shit for it, close to non existent
Because good games don't need as many mods as some other games do :D

>Overall W3 has nothing going for it, unless you are a massive fan of Sapkowski books.
Overall F4 is just another one shoot-em-up with a grain of Minecraft/Sims, unless you are a massive fan of Fallout series.

>this is my last 2 cents here, I dont see any point in discussing the superiority of Fallout 4 over witcher 3, when the OP is clearly a massive fanboy and will never be objective.
Talk about objectivity...

"

GruntOfAction wrote:

Honestly the worst part about it was having the player character use voice lines, meaning you could only ever say exactly what they wanted you to say. In Fallout New Vegas you could use numerous speech options and certain modifiers would affect how your speech looked (if you had low intelligence your words would be really dumb). I want Obsidian to do a Fallout game with the new engine but make it good.

Also, in F3/FNV you could have - gasp! - more than 4 dialogue options. Which could also rely on your skills/stats. That was one of my biggest disappointments with F4. I expecting it to be a reskin of F3, but these dialogues were too much.

its garbage.
not even worth being called a fallout game.

so is 3 by the way.

new vegas had its share of problems, but its a million times better and actually be called an rpg compared to these glorified shooters.

"

grepman wrote:

its garbage.
not even worth being called a fallout game.

so is 3 by the way.

They aren't Fallout, they are TES:Fallout.

"

grepman wrote:

new vegas had its share of problems, but its a million times better and actually be called an rpg compared to these glorified shooters.

Yep, the only one worthy of three.

"

silumit wrote:

"

grepman wrote:

new vegas had its share of problems, but its a million times better and actually be called an rpg compared to these glorified shooters.

Yep, the only one worthy of three.

It's 'glorified crappy shooters', but yeah, NV was probably the best of TES Fallouts. Obsidian usually does an adequate job, I'll have to try Tyranny as soon as possible.

"

raics wrote:

"

silumit wrote:

"

grepman wrote:

new vegas had its share of problems, but its a million times better and actually be called an rpg compared to these glorified shooters.

Yep, the only one worthy of three.

It's 'glorified crappy shooters', but yeah, NV was probably the best of TES Fallouts. Obsidian usually does an adequate job, I'll have to try Tyranny as soon as possible.

Tyranny is fucking awesome, I'm ten hours in or so and it's really worth playing imo. Just be prepared to read a lot.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Tyranny is fucking awesome, I'm ten hours in or so and it's really worth playing imo. Just be prepared to read a lot.

Always am, I expected the amount of text will be at least on par with Pillars :)

"

silumit wrote:

>then i go into combat and realize who crippled it is.
What do you mean?

He meant "how".

well yeah theyre in that 'crappy to barely average shooter' range, but I dont think it would matter much even if they were good shooters.

FO3 was a huge fuck you to fans of one of the most revered rpg series in history (well, modern history I guess since ultima wizardry and m&m were a bit before). how you make a long-awaited game in a series known for its c&c, roleplaying and freedom of roleplaying (such as pacifist playthroughs), an average shoot em up in a fallout setting ?

it's simply parasiting the brand name. if fo3 and fo4 were made by a small company without much experience and were called 'survival xyz' and 'survival xyz-2' I wouldnt have many problems with it- they would be average games and thats that.

fo3 was the biggest fuck you to fans in a cult game series Ive seen in the history of pc games. and its not like it couldnt have been done differently, since new vegas was actually a good game.

and its not like I condone just re-skinning old games, on the contrary I like new ideas- for example, homm4 was a great game imo and I even prefer it to the more polished homm3, even though loyal fans werent too fond of the changes; thats how you do innovation in your game. homm4 didnt alter the main core gameplay or basically go to altogether another genre.