so what do you thnk about fallout 4 compared to previous fallouts?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
The one "major" complaint (the only real one) I have about Fallout 4, however, is that everything there is to find (via exploration) at least on the surface is waaaaaaay too packed / condensed together. The feel of a "wasteland" is barely present when you literally find a new location every 20 meters regardless of the direction you walk to. The map, technically, is supposedly bigger than Fallout 3 (maybe it is, I just haven't looked at the details on that one), but regardless of that fact (it if is) it's still way too small especially considering that it runs on so-called "next gen" (current gen) consoles (that's the common denominator they built the game around for, we know that, but both the PS4 and XBOX One would have been capable to handle way more content especially with a game that still runs on [updated] GameBryo; c'mon Bethesda).

So if anything, I would have liked a much bigger map, in order to have more actual wasteland to have that loneliness feel kick in for more than just 30 seconds of walk time (which is usually interrupted by "Oh, look, I discovered something again, filled up by 15 paroling Raiders; damn son, overpopulation in the Wasteland? who would have thought!). But anyway, overall, I really, really like Fallout 4, and the big mods aren't even out yet (if you guys think what's available right now over at FO4 Nexus is good, wait until the official editor gets out, give it a year or so after that, then we'll start talking).

That is unfortunately how Bethseda has made all their games since Morrowind. Yes even the great Morrowind had this problem, but they used heavy fog to try to obscure it. Honestly I thought Skyrim had sufficient quest content, but it was made on far too small of a map. The whole map basically needs to be multiplied to 4 to 16 times as big. That would be 2 times as big on each edge for the small enlargement, or being 4 times as big when going for the big enlargement. Then all they would need to do is fill in all of the more minor stuff you find in Skyrim like small empty campsites and bear dens. Also in the current form of Skyrim, you know exactly where randomly spawning encounters are going to spawn, so it would be great if they could instead have randomly spawning encounters over a large area, and have them start wandering over a large area, and interact with everyone they encounter while roaming around, including animals, NPCs, and the PC.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
Side note: People complaining about the look, I believe FO3 and later are more representative of how a nuclear apocalyptic world would look than 1 or 2. Sure, there are some people who seem unable to remove basic garbage from their homes in FO4, but then again society would likely be very difficult if not impossible to reboot. Humanity has progressed as far as it has in the real world by building on top of the technology that came before it. Global nuclear war wipes out the building blocks. If my life consisted of scavenging 200 year old mashed potatoes to try not to starve, cleaning the papers out of the husk of a building I'm squatting in is probably low on my priority list.

For those who have basic smelting technology, which means basically everyone who has the knowledge, willpower, and some mud, then all those rusting car junk would have been torn down and used for scrap metal, which then means the limitation is not can they make metal, but what type of items can they actually produce.
 

JasonCoder

Golden Member
Feb 23, 2005
1,893
1
81
I guess I have the unpopular opinion of liking the game... yeah it gets repetitive eventually but I'm level 56 now and haven't done a ton of the main story. If you like Fallout 3, I think you'd like this one.

I'm with you. I think there are some valid points people have but it's all minor. Not even many crash bugs which is unusual for a Bethesda rpg.

It's flat out amazing how much content is in this game. I'm sure I'm over 100 hours and could probably see 200+

The gold standard seems to be new vegas... ok yea the story was decent but the game was buggy as shit and had a pretty tired ass palate.
 

runzwithsizorz

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2002
3,500
14
76
Have it installed. Not as hard as Requiem, but still good, and it makes a good base to add other mods to like full weather mods and weapons mods.
I think modding the game is as much fun as playing...love the outfits, especially the "Clint Eastwood Man with no name pack"

The Wife
 

Tweak155

Lifer
Sep 23, 2003
11,448
262
126
I'm with you. I think there are some valid points people have but it's all minor. Not even many crash bugs which is unusual for a Bethesda rpg.

It's flat out amazing how much content is in this game. I'm sure I'm over 100 hours and could probably see 200+

The gold standard seems to be new vegas... ok yea the story was decent but the game was buggy as shit and had a pretty tired ass palate.

I couldn't finish NV... the cowboy theme was just too much. I think I put 18hrs in and quit.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
13
81
www.markbetz.net
The whole map basically needs to be multiplied to 4 to 16 times as big. That would be 2 times as big on each edge for the small enlargement, or being 4 times as big when going for the big enlargement. Then all they would need to do is fill in all of the more minor stuff you find in Skyrim like small empty campsites and bear dens.

Yes, that's all they would need to do: hand-place 8x or 16x as much content. Have you ever tried to create a realistic 3D environment? It's an instructive exercise. You can get Unreal Engine for free, and almost everything you can do can be done through the GUI if you're not into programming. Try it out. I spent about two months of spare time generating terrain, importing assets, writing shader programs to transition from grass to dirt to alpine textures based on altitude or grade. What you eventually realize is that you cannot get results like you see in Fallout 4 without hand editing every square meter of surface. Sure, you can lay down some very basic textures programmatically, but it looks like shit. Toss in all the props: rocks, deadfall, detritus and you will begin to get an idea of the level of effort involved.

The map in FO4 is already so big that probably 90% of players fast travel exclusively in the later parts of the game, at least. Leaving aside the fact that what we really all want is for them to model the _entire world_ it really doesn't need to be any larger. Is it too densely packed? It's Boston, not the wilds around Las Vegas. I thought FO3's landscape was frankly way too barren to actually represent DC after a nuclear war. FO4 strikes me as about right for that part of the country.

But of course, the rest of it is absurd, and if you can't suspend skepticism then you'll spend the entire game rolling your eyes. It's been 200 years and there is still paper lying around in the open, cheap wooden structures are still standing, the vegetation has not really recovered, the people are basically more desperate versions of the people around when you went in the vault. It's absolutely bonkers. Good game designers, good programmers, but a grasp of history and time they do not have. You could plausibly say the game is set somewhere around 20-40 years after the war. 200? Not a chance.

As for how the game compares to previous installments, I can speak from the perspective of someone who has played 3 and NV, but never played 1 or 2. The world is prettier and more immersive, the population is sparser and has a lot less variety, the quest interaction/dialog is about the same (whether you love or hate the new interface), the perk system is a wash (but the interface is horrible), the settlement system is fun and a totally new mechanic, the companion system is about the same, combat is about the same, guns are more fun because more mods, and overall the loot system is more fun and loot is more needed than in the previous titles.

TL;DR: the world is greatly improved, most of the core mechanics are dumbed down for the short attention span generation, but that's a broad and lamentable trend we can't tar Bethesda for.

Lastly, I have about 100 hours in at this point with a single crash. That's nothing short of amazing to me.
 

xantub

Senior member
Feb 12, 2014
717
1
46
I consider Fallout 4, after my hype died down, basically the same as Fallout 3, many times I felt like I was playing the same game again.
I guess it's a current trend of RPGs (AAA ones at least), don't bother about improving gameplay, just make a big world with lots of fully voiced NPCs and MMO quests.
 

Apathetic

Platinum Member
Dec 23, 2002
2,587
6
81
Worst of the lot. the settlement building is a good idea but they did a terrible job at it.

the world is fucking tiny. Also so many repetitive quest.

I completely agree with you - especially about building.

Dave
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
13
81
www.markbetz.net
Story just feels so weak... still hoping it gets better.

Seriously, though... when were the Fallout stories not weak? For that matter when were the Elder Scrolls stories not weak? It's pretty hard to combine open-world non-linear play with immersive storytelling.
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
21,917
828
126
I dug the game a lot. Rushed it in the first playthru but replayed it again using alternatives to run and gun. Got my female character to nail a female NPC, that was pretty cool.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
Seriously, though... when were the Fallout stories not weak? For that matter when were the Elder Scrolls stories not weak? It's pretty hard to combine open-world non-linear play with immersive storytelling.


Eh I don't think the original fallout story was weak. You are selected to enter a vast unknown wasteland to find water for your vault. It wasn't until Fallout 3 did the story get convoluted and dumb.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,074
1,554
126
Fallout 3 new vegas is the best of the (new) fallout games.

Fallout 4 was neat, but, overall weaker as a game.


(Fallout 2 was my overall favorite over time)
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
I'm with you. I think there are some valid points people have but it's all minor. Not even many crash bugs which is unusual for a Bethesda rpg.

It's flat out amazing how much content is in this game. I'm sure I'm over 100 hours and could probably see 200+

The gold standard seems to be new vegas... ok yea the story was decent but the game was buggy as shit and had a pretty tired ass palate.

I've had fewer crashes with Fallout 4 than any previous Bethesda title.
But I'd have liked something a little more original in terms of the main quest and for that matter, the side quests.

Although having Lynda Carter croon out love songs was pretty cool.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,108
1,260
126
It was a good game and worth the purchase. The huge improvement was for an RPG with guns finally having gunplay that felt good compared to the garbage it was in F3 & NV. It was also watered down in some areas like skills and it was definitely too easy. I played it on survival and it was a joke, needed more difficulty if you want a challenge out of games.

Immediately after finishing FO4 the next game I (re)played was New Vegas with visual mods and all the DLC. The story driven questing is a lot stronger in NV and the world setting was a lot better. I'd say it is the better game of those two, but the gun controls are just abysmal. The DLC in NV was really good, Old World Blues and Lonesome Road were great.

Hopefully FO4 gets some good DLC. It's too bad we won't get an Obsidian rendition of Fallout using the improved FO4 engine.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Out of the box, Fallout 4 is much, much better than Fallout 3 or New Vegas. Both of those games were utterly unplayable for me until heavily modded, whereas Fallout 4 has been extremely stable with workable mechanics. I'm not running a single mod and yet I've happily put in over 250 hours so far. Heavily modded, both Fallout 3 and New Vegas were better to me, but I'm sure that Fallout 4 with its mods will eventually be by far the best experience.

The good:
It's really, really pretty outside. You can see a long way, and only occasionally is pop-in noticeable. Compare that to 3 or NV where the landscape often completely changed as you grew closer, so that you could see the valley from far away but closer up you can't because there's a building in the way.

It's really, really stable. Not just "for a Bethesda game", but for any game its size.

It's really, really shooter-friendly. This time the combat mechanics are honestly well done by Bethesda.

The voice acting actually improved compared to previous Fallout games. Evidently all the voice actors were not required to travel in the same Vega wagon this time, so not everyone sounds the same.

Lynda Carter does an excellent job acting, singing and writing her material. She's not the world's best torch singer, but she's pretty damn good.

The music is way, way, way better than in NV. Maybe not as good as in 3, with the notable exception of Carter's material, but maybe more varied. (Hard to remember because I used the excellent "GNR Expanded" mod.)

Enemy AI is a bit better, though still embarrassingly bad for 2015.

Map design is often excellent. I really like all the partially collapsed overpasses and partially submerged areas.

Bethesda has discovered that nuclear holocaust doesn't cause the air to be green, nor remove damn near every other color besides brown.

Feral ghouls have become more . . . interesting.

Nick Valentine is probably my all-time favorite companion, possibly with the exception of Willow.

Making settlements gives a real sense that the character is making real progress.

What's not:
The constant repetitive quests to locations one just cleaned out grinds home the lesson that no progress is being made.

Quests in general are far too repetitive. Going to a certain location to kill everything there is exactly the same as going to a certain location to kill everything there to rescue a hostage and exactly the same as going to a certain location to kill everything there to recover a bit of tech that wasn't there the last six times you looted that exact chest.

It's extremely difficult (at least on Survival) early on, and extremely easy at high level.

Companion AI is embarrassingly bad even compared to Fallout 3. Can't count the times Nick has run across my line of fire for no particular reason during combat, and while he always turns his back on me if I speak to him, he always tries to get directly in front of me and face me if I'm about to open fire. If he can't get in front of me, then he'll stick his arm through me so I hit that if I fire. Greenpeace should be so motivated.

Bethesda really needs to decide if the nuclear exchange was two days ago or two hundred years ago. The food is (moldy food excepted) still edible and many terminals still powered, yet many cars and houses have largely decayed away.

The settlement boundaries are arbitrary and senseless. In one case I'm building communal shanties in a cramped little area that is literally surrounded by houses and buildings.

The great promise of your character being voiced was the ability to emote, yet someone apparently forgot to warn the male actor (haven't played as the female) and the writers. Watching my wife be brutally murdered and my son stolen should evoke more emotion than watching my car get towed. It does not. That said, I do really like both actors' voices.

Bethesda really needs to revisit its weapon system. Nothing that weighs twenty-eight pounds should ever be termed an assault rifle. Maybe an assault-on-common-sense rifle.

The map is waaay too small, so everything is crammed into the same area. Come into one raider gang's area and the firefight often draws in the supermutants living next door. Literally, next door. It's like virtually every building one can enter is some gang's home base.

Companions have far too few lines for their programmed speech intervals. I've experienced them saying the same vapid thing four times in a row within a couple minutes. Granted, adding voiced lines costs money, but having them chatter the same thing over and over is simply annoying.

There is zero thought given to how all these beings survive. They evidently eat each other while waiting on me to plant stuff.

People should not accept dead bodies in their homes. Especially military units and settlers.

Dialog has been dumbed down to the point that I just select the bottom answer all the time. It's an atmospheric shooter far more than an RPG.

Character design, textures, and animations are still not equal to the best work of modders.

The verdict:
Although I have more negatives than positives, I'm very happy with the game. I pre-ordered just to support Bethesda making another Fallout game. I full expected to wait months to be able to have a satisfactory experience. Instead, I have enjoyed the game exactly as they designed and released it. Fully modded, I think both Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas are better games, but that is because I can choose from tens of thousands of mods to build them into exactly the game I prefer. Since Fallout 4 has that same flexibility and support built in, plus is a really good game from day one, obviously it is the superior game.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Any links or rumors on this at all?
Obsidian had confirmed several times they'd be open to doing it, but nothing from Bethesda I've seen. Bethesda always plays their cards close to the vest, but Obsidian wouldn't be so open if there were anything in the works or likely. Pity - I really like New Vegas and would love to see what Obsidian could do with Fallout 4's engine and assets. Though I'm not sure Bethesda could get Obsidian cheaply enough to make it worth their while.
 

JujuFish

Lifer
Feb 3, 2005
11,003
735
136
If Obsidian does make another Fallout, Bethesda better not dick them over with the Metacritic bonus requirement again.
 

thehotsung8701A

Senior member
May 18, 2015
584
1
0
Huge disappointment and I can't even finish it. It not a Fallout game, it a fps set in the Fallout universe. The RPG elements are either strip down or completely gone. And I'm so tire of pipe weapons.
 

Blue_Max

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2011
4,227
153
106
1235-3-1448511384.png

THIS is a mod I need to get. NOW.

Since the story + dialogue is what's leaving me wanting over the previous games, a full-text story choice will at least help.... even if the dialogue choices still don't matter most of the time. (Whether you're an eager buttkisser or sarcastic jerk, the NPC still carries on regardless.)
 

escrow4

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2013
3,339
122
106
CD Projekt should make a Fallout. Then it would be done properly. I have never got Bethesda's games. They are OK but nothing special. Serviceable and that is it. The plots are trifling tropes at best and the rest is meh. Finished 4 and 3, couldn't get into Vegas and played Skyrim a bit. There is nothing to jump up and down about. I honestly prefer Mass Effect over them all. And no, I'm not using my imagination. Its a game, not a book. A 1000 page 10 book fantasy epic you can imagine, Bethesda no.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
I enjoyed FO4. It's Bethesda writing so the story's no better than F03, and nowhere near the level of NV or 1-2. The ending was weak, though nothing like the stupidity of FO3's before Broken Steel retconned it.

Exploring is still fun. The voice acting is good even if they should have paid the companion actors to record 4-5 times as much of their random chatter. Combat is improved over FO3/NV. Graphics are much better. Great job on Dogmeat.

And yes, it's too bad this is Bethesda not CD Projekt -- I could see CD Projekt deciding to spend a little of the giant pile of cash (highest day 1 ever) on fixing things like the need for more chatter, as a free update. Bethesda? No chance.

At least we're supposed to get the GECK so modders can go wild.
 

TidusZ

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2007
1,765
2
81
I really enjoyed fallout 1/2, didnt play tactics, thought 3 was reasonably good, couldn't get into vegas and thought 4 was mediocre, didn't get that far before losing interest. It pretty much felt like a fallout 3 expansion pack that was 6 years late. If you look at Fallout 3 and 4 side by side you certainly wouldn't be thinking there was 7 years between those games.
 
Last edited: