I don't get why this board bash Fallout 4 so much...

Back to the point though. Why do people hate FO4 but love GTA V?

Do you have 3 hours to spare, op?

I agree OP, Fallout 4 is such a great game!
Yet anons here would rather play trash like new vegas, such unrefined tastes on this board.
By the way, have you purchased Fallout 4 and it's season pass on Steam? Its worth every penny.

GTA V is still a GTA game. Fallout 4 feels like everything but a Fallout game

(You)

Faggot, stalker doez fallout 4 infinitly better.

piper and the fuckwad syth detective wrecked the game for me.

Even that guy praised the combat.

It feels like a Beth Fallout.

Looting and crafting items felt pointless though, and the world feels more empty on free roam. Fighting mutants also felt worse. STALKER might be great, but it's not the same game and it sets different goals.

Careful trying to mention other games around bethestards. If it's not a 1:1 recreation of a bethesda game then they are literally nothing alike!

Really the mods should just delet this

The world in FO4 is just as empty. A post apocalyptic world isnt supposed to have somthing around every corner retard. Especally after 200 years or however long fo4 takes place after the bombs. Its retarded to think there would be stimpacks and ammo lying around everywhere. Fo1 and 2 did that better having ammo only be in dangerous areas.

Because the two groups have different player bases. GTA fans loved GTA V because they love everything from Cockstar and because GTA V had an option for a happy ending where GTA IV didn't. Fallout fans hate Fallout 4 because its not a good RPG and not a good Fallout game.

There are many more factors that determine whether a game is enjoyed or not, just because a game is innovative doesn't mean it will be well received. Your argument is that Fallout 4 innovated on Fallout 3 and that it wasn't given such good review scores, but GTA V was given high review scores despite being an inferior version of GTA IV. Your false premise is that Fallout 4 innovated on anything in the first place.

Summer cannot end soon enough.

Someone post the boston salt party mp4s please

Well, it really is nothing alike. STALKER tries to be far more realistic, Fallout 4 is sandbox Diablo with guns.

Which one is it?

Innovated, as in making new technology? No, but it improved upon the mechanics of the previous games, while GTA V got rid of them.

This video pretty accurately shows what Fallout 4 did right

Its empty in the sense that you can find random loot boxes, but thats kinda it for long streches. Loot != a full world.

Well, STALKER is empty in the sense that it's literally empty, like, many places that you explore are vacant.

it's shit

GTA V's story? You mean GTA III's story told YET again?

I agree with you about Fallout 4, but let's not act like Rockstar's "LOLmerica guiz LMAO!!!" shit is actually good storytelling.

Exactly, and thats how a post apoc game should be.

Yeah, I like for what it is, but it's empty, and therefore not the same as Fallout.

Its rewarding as fuck when you find something in a seemingly abandoned building.

/rant

And fallout is shit

"4" by Bethesda does everything a fallout have should do terribly. In exchange, it does a few things that aren't important to a Fallout game adequately. It does nothing well, and for any of the okay things it does there are dozens of games that do them better already.
Furthermore, a lot of the upgrades are things that should just be given. Fallout was overdue for a graphical upgrade, and these aren't even that impressive, and the gunplay always needed a rework. But fans let it side because those aren't really important, because fallout is not an action game. But there are people who say that delivering overdue secondary features is an excuse to completely neglect the core of the game.
It's if call of duty spent millions of dollars implementing a completely free form dialogue system and the ai to handle it, but forgot to put guns in it.

Post Todds.
I think I lost my dedicated Todd folder.

I thought Fallout New Vegas was going to be a shit "Holla Forums meme game is good" but I actually enjoyed my extensive playthrough of it. Still felt like I fucked up siding with the Legion and Ceaser.

There's' nothing wrong with this.

Yeah, but I prefer that to not knowing what gun I should bring due to the abundance of ammo types in NV. All 9mm guns are peashooters, but I always ended up keeping one because it has more ammo loots than any other guns. 10mm and 45 perform similarly, and the ammo is just as scarce for both of them. 5.56 and 5mm too. There are just too many of them. Sometimes, I prefer linearity just to make inventory planning a bit less finicky. Just like how half of the new weapons in Fallout 2 ended up useless, such as the .45 guns, and the magnum revolver is better than the deagle all the way through the game.

Maybe, but still better than GTA V.

If i wanted to play diablo i would play diablo
Typical bethesda fan

If you're a brain dead husk that thinks the basic gameplay triangle and nothing else makes for a rewarding experience.

I don't know. I've always played Fallout 2 as a loot and shoot game where you upgrade your character's health, and FO4 does it better. I enjoyed NPC interactions in FO1 and FO2 for the comedic dialogue options rather than choice making, and the sarcasm option of FO4 didn't really disappoint. "Core of the game" can be pretty much subjective to a certain extent.

If Todd is going to throw the lore out he might as well spend time to make the combat fun.

What the fuck?

WHY?

In a different game. Bit that's not the point of Fallout

Ammo only has weight in hardcore mode, and I doubt that's what you're playing. If you want to dumb down an entire game because you are incapable of picking a damn gun then you probably shouldn't be playing rpgs in the first place.
Planning your inventory in new Vegas is so fucking easy too.

Are you fucking twelve years old?

It was rather because not all guns are abundant of ammo drops and repair materials. In a game with inventory management, I enjoy conserving resources.

IMO, the best part of Fallout 2 is discovering the most OP gun early in the game, selling expensive guns to SF chinks and getting unlimited cash, collecting ammo, bloating your health, and making every combat feel like a breeze.

Yes and Call if Duty is my favorite Rhythm game.

This is a post apoc universe, there isnt going to be much ammo in the first place.
Now, im not saying fo2 is bad, but fo2 doesnt really have that good combat. Most of what makes it good is the dialogue choices and quests. The combat is a bit slow, so its not really my favorite part. But combat is not the focus of fo2.

CRPGs were a mistake. Roleplaying never should have left the tabletop. Video game players don't deserve RPGs and this thread is proof.

Modern gamers dont deserve CRPGs. I can still appreciate a good one.

Ammo literally weighs nothing and you can tell gore much you have for any given gun by equipping it without ever looking at it in your inventory screen. The worst you'll ever have to do is press a button to check your special ammo types.

It is, but for me too much of it kinda ruins the pacing.

That's why I like FO4 more.

RPG that we know in video games isn't the same as tabletop, and it doesn't have too. It just took some inspiration from it.

It's not about ammo weight, but abundance.

If it takes you so long that it ruins the pacing, you're either retarded or playing the wrong game. Probably both.

Video game "rpgs" released today are not rpgs because the genre has been dumbed down for dumbfucks like you. CRPGs were always supposed to be actual roleplaying games, that's why half of them are literally just ports of D&D.

this image does the same without having to suffer through some retarded fag's surrogate friend inane dribblings

...

Oh and let me add, since you don't seem to understand, that until Fallout 4, Fallout was one of the few actual rpg franchises left. That's why people don't like Fallout 4. The same goes for Skyrim, but even that is much more of an RPG than Fallout 4.

Yes, I totally believe that people would happily live in dilapidated buildings in such shit condition that you could squeeze between the wall boards if your door didn't open.

Didn't take long, but I like being able to complete a checklist right after completing another checklist without going home.

Don't know, but I played Ultima 1 and it was basically a turn based hack and slash open world sandbox game, simpler than anything we have today.

That's why people are dumb. Go play Wasteland 2 and Tranny if you want RPG, Fallout is sandbox shooter game now.

I still prefer that to lowres lego blocks.

Play an mmo or warframe. You're missing the point of Fallout

It doesn't matter how complex the combat mechanics are if you can roleplay in it. You seem to be missing the point. Façade is a better RPG than anything most babes that call themselves rpgs today. Literally rock paper scissors with a sufficiently developed dialogue system is a better rpg than most rpgs today.

Fallout 4 is a sandbox shooter. Are you implying that fallout New Vegas was also not an rpg because it was first person?

Your bait went way too obvious with that post.

It's always "you're missing the point of x series." If a game offers something that I enjoy, it doesn't matter what the dev's goals are, what matters is I like what I like.

You can't roleplay in Ultima 1. All you do is buy stuff, receive a quest from a king in town, go to a dungeon, kill, loot stuff, go back, sell stuff, and receive money and health from king. That's all, nothing else, but you can go anywhere you want. FO4 is rooted in this basic CRPG mechanic.

The CRPG that modern gamers want are visual novels with choices and tacked on combat, not simply CRPG in it's purest form.

That's a lie though.

At least it made you feel something, like your decision that you made affected the world and everyone around you.

FO4 has none of that. The choices are all the same and change nothing about anything.

You can play the game wrong if you enjoy it, but you can't say that others are wrong for playing it right, or that you should be pandered too, or that a game that is worse at what it's supposed to be is better at being what it's supposed to be because you like it.
If you get stand enjoyment out of misplaying rpgs, that's on you, but that didn't make you right to say that FO4 is a better rpg, or a better fallout game, or a better game, because it switched genres to appease people like you. It also doesn't mean that nobody else wants actual rpgs and that every other rpg should be changed in the same way.

If what you said about Ultima is true, then a bad RPG, and you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. However based on this thread I'm just going to assume that it supports roleplaying very well and you're too autistic to recognize roleplaying if it was taking you with a bag of d20s. If Ultima is actually as bad of an RPG, and Fallout 4 is very comparable to it, then I rest my case. "But you can go anywhere" is not a "core rpg mechanic", and pointing to a couple bad rpgs didn't make it one.

They both got rid of shit.
Gta lost the funny ass physics, but fallout lost. Skills, Dialogue lists, the actual rpg feel of things while being stuck tied to a character who's only goal is to look for his son.
I imagine that heavy rain jason video on repeat.

Issues I had with fallout.

Zenimax/Bethesda is to blame for the Legion being underdeveloped and a bad choice to side with. They rushed the game and the game is missing a third of the originally planned content. You really don't ever get to see the positives of Caesar's rule and it really leaves a bad taste on an otherwise great Fallout game, only trumped by Fallout 1. Bethesda knows this and were so salty that they downgraded 4 from NV in numerous ways such as with the ammo crafting being completely removed.

Shit man, you want to kill that drive or what the fuck?

Fuck off and kill yourself, only Redditors feel the need to preemptively defend themselves with talk like that.

There's no right or wrong about playing a game. As long as you understand all the gameplay mechanics, you're doing right. It's a matter of which aspect you like, and I don't consider anyone right or wrong for having this subjective preference.

Why? PLATO dnd, Ultima 1, and it's cousin Akalabeth are the father of all RPG video games. This is what RPG video game is.

And as an open world shooter game, it's a really great loss. FO4 lost some of it's mechanics as well, that RPG fans might consider to be core mechanics. So, there's no logic in hating FO4 while not giving GTA 5 the equal treatment.

They had roughly 2 years. Fallout 3 was developed in roughly 3 years. For a game that recycles most of it's content and tweaks a few things in the engine, 2 years is sufficient.

I thought the goid side was clear, it just happened that the good side if Caesar's Legion was something you had to be far Right-Authoritarian to appreciate

Get some better bait friend

Wrong

Early doesn't mean good. In this case it appears it means bad. If Ultima paved the way for good rpgs, and was a good rpg in it's time, that's one thing. It's another to say that that justifies reverting the mechanics back and ignoring the refinements and improvements that the genre made throughout it's life.
It's basically like saying it would be okay for a game to release today with Goldeneye controls because Goldeneye was good when it was released.

There's nothing wrong about the way you play a game, I said.

All I'm saying is this is what is defined as CRPG, this is what CRPG has always been supposed to be. Attribute numbers, combat, exploration, and character interaction. So, Fallout 4 is a CRPG, regardless of what you think.

Yeah, you can go eat shit, bud. Game development is not only putting on a new coat of paint on last year's model. Games take fucking time. It was clearly not sufficient time considering the final product and what every single developer who had a hand in it had to say about it. Bethesda putting out a piece of shit in three years is no excuse for forcing another developer with probably less resources and manpower to do the same in two years and release an objectively better product. Reusing shitty assets didn't make New Vegas good. Your dumb-ass saying it was sufficient won't rewrite history.

They are no advantages to expanding the influence of Caesar's Legion in New Vegas. In the current state of the game, the only positives that exist to the Legion are fabricated by edgelords and Holla Forumstards. You'd have to be a fucking barbarian to think most of the shit you've listed is good for the Mojave Wasteland.
Tim Cain said:
Holla Forums's wet dream is a shitty way of exploring those ethics because the redeeming qualities to the Legion never had a chance to be added. You have to have a balance, no faction is perfect for New Vegas, but Caesar and his Legion is dead last. In my opinion, New Vegas belongs to Mr. House.

CRPGs are defined by player freedom and agency.
Fallout 4 lacks any aspect of character creation or role-playing. Your backstory and your ending is predetermined. You will always have a missing son, you will always be a pre-war mother/wife or husband/father. You will always embark on a journey to save your son. Character interaction is barebones and limited to a maximum four options at all times. You have two endings dependent on a single choice. You can side with one of three factions which doesn't impact the game in any substantial way except what you shoot at certain times. Your freedom only lies in where you go to shoot and loot either raiders, synths, or mutants. It is the antithesis of a CRPG. It is a dulling exercise in clicking things to kill them, taking their stuff, and then cashing that in. That is not a CRPG. It answers no questions about the ethics of a post-apocalyptic wasteland or the nature of a man through the exploration of interactions between a unique character you've created and their world and its denizens. It is made to waste the time of people with the brain capacity of children after they've willingly handed their money in exchange for this torture.

...

I didn't side like Caesar's Legion, but I did see how others could, and assumed that those people were who the faction was for

That was definitely the worst part of the game. I'm just saying that 1.5 year is fair compared to FO3. They weren't forced to make NV anyway.

Well, Fallout 2 forced me to play as a tribal kid, destroy enclave, kill the big claw guy, and save arroyo. But it's a CRPG, eh?

That is CRPG.

I booted up the game, I know every mechanics, I finished the game, I ain't played it wrong. I just like certain things that you don't like.

Fallout 2 only restricts your character to being from Arroyo and trying to save it. The variety of endings stand as proof as to how much agency and freedom the player character has because that game is a CRPG unlike Fallout 4. I do not see your point.

...

FO4 only restricts your character to being a prewar parent who tries to find their son.

Just a bunch of non game changing slideshows. CRPG's in the past didn't even have multiple endings. It's an optional feature.

Me neither.

Bad analogy. That isn't a part of the game.

Vid related: shit you cant do in 4

Also, you can't do the opposite (a pacifist run) in 4.

Also

isn't wrong. Even for an open world game 4 is really shit no matter how you think about it.

In Fallout 4 you're going to find your son.
You're going to follow the breadcrumb trail.
You're going to help people in the way they want you to help, and you're not going to deviate from that role whatsoever.
You might as well not have a dialogue wheel, and even the people who made the game admitted as much.

Christ, reading this thread is giving me an aneurysm.

Solid baiting, user.

My favorite is anytime they wave off really, really objectivity as opinion.

don't forget tight boypussy.

Ho boy, dubs

Except that Caesar's Legion was written too much as a parody… on purpose I'm guessing.
Instead of just keeping a few motifs and updating them for the setting
Yeah the romans were barbaric back then, but that's because every conflict was practically genocidal. There was no pragmatism with this legion.
Except he has no charisma
What the fuck was even binding these people

I wanted to pick them but what was the point. There was no patrician quality to them at all.

Oh really?

Supposely, you'd be able to travel beyond his fort and see the land behind it, where a few cities under Caesar's rule are prospering.
It would be a place to show a very strict and layered society that sees little danger from the world since they take care of any raiders\mutants\animas and keep the place safe.

The idea there was that, while they are horribly barbaric, they provide incredible security and stability to their lands, enabling massive trade caravans between them even.
Also very low criminality too since punishments are incredibly harsh.

In practice, it's still a shitty faction. Africa stands as an IRL example of what happens to a country full of armed men who know nothing but how to kill when there's little conflict to be had. As soon as the Legion reached the west coast, you'd have thousands of legionaires with no job, wasting the rest of their money before becoming so poor they'd be forced into criminality or starve.
Meanwhile everyone else would be forced to produce according to what the Legion needs, not what they want, and any attempt at individuality would be seen as degeneracy.

It would be far better if they had put a spin on it and tried to make them incredibly libertarian, maybe Greek-inspired instead, seeing the NCR as a faction bent on legally enslaving people while they prefer to act more as paladins, even if it means being extremely violent.

The good things about it wont be apparent to people here until 5 comes out.

Skyrim does this too, the script refresh rate is tied to the framerate in both games.