Fallout 4 Review in: "The Dangers Of Hype"

I don't know if this goes against some rule, if it does, then apologies in advance and do with this post whatever has to be done.

This is a review for Fallout 4 on International Business Times, archived before it was taken down.

The review doesn't go in depth, but it does touch upon my biggest worry, confirming it: "It's not that the game doesn't give you things to do -- it gives you far more than anybody could reasonably expect -- it's that it doesn't really supply a consistent set of reasons to want to do those things.", one of the biggest issues with the franchise, acidly analyzed in Shamus Young's The Blistering Stupidity of Fallout 3.

Similarly, the "Good Points" being "clear sky" and "VATS" don't do much to lift my skepticism, but this seems a tad superficially written. Nonetheless, the worry about providing an immersive character, dialogues and identification tools seems to be justified.

The worst thing that review says is basically he isn't a fan of the familiar system in place that was there for FO3 and NV. He criticized the story and pacing, but those aspects have never been particularly engrossing or outstanding in any of the previous games in the first place.

It essentially confirms what I've already suspected FO4 would be: more of the same in a slightly prettier world. I'm perfectly fine with that assessment.

@wide_ocean: Reviewer is not a Fallout fan. Fallout 4 was made for Fallout fans. Enough said.

Like some have said, Fallout isn't for everybody. I'm not a big fan of Fallout, but I'll pick it up when it hits Craigslist for $30-40. It's not a game I urge to experience, its the type of game I check out for the sake of playing it. I've always found the games to be a tad boring, they feel too dead/silent for my personal liking.

I do respect and understand those who like it though. Its a unique experience that is well made.

FO3 and NV didn't have one-word dialogue wheels that basically don't let you fully see the answer you chose until it appears on screen, as it seems to be the case in FO4. I feel this takes away a lot from an RPG (and I've never been a fan of Mass Effect, which many like to point out as successful example). Agreed, the first two Fallout games might not have had the most compelling stories, but they managed to give characters unique flavor, and they had some excellent dialogue experiences (debating chemical properties of Jet with Myron on high Science skill comes to mind, for example). Not saying FO3 and NV were bad games, but the difference was quite disappointing. Combat, greatly improved, sure. Non-combat gameplay heavily shallowed down.

Fallout 4 even abolished the skill system. Sure, the perk chart looks pretty. Let's see how it plays!

I can somewhat agree with that issue, it's just that it never really mattered to me. Many of the characters in F3 and NV were indeed incredibly forgettable and the story was rather uninteresting in many ways, but it was never about that, in my opinion. It was about exploring, about making your own story. You kind of have to come up with your own reasons to want to do things... Some people like that, others don't.

Now, this is coming from someone who is rarely captivated by stories in videogames. I can be captivated by characters, but most videogame stories seem rather uninteresting and superficial. In the particular context of F4 I just want a varied and engaging world that rewards exploration. Skyrim didn't really have a story and all of its characters lacked depth, but it was still great. You just went out there to explore and enjoy the world, making up your own goals and stories along the way.