Fallout 4: good game, bad RPG

PC Gamer :

"I’m loving Fallout 4. Wandering the wasteland, poking around in abandoned buildings, listening to chirpy ‘50s pop, fighting mutants. It’s a great game to lose yourself in on a cold winter’s evening. But as a role-playing experience I’m finding it disappointingly weak—to the point where I wouldn’t even call it an RPG. An open-world action game with role-playing elements would be a more accurate description.

The same could be applied to other Bethesda games, which are often described as being as broad as an ocean and as deep as a puddle. But Fallout 4 feels like their most restrictive game yet in terms of customisation, choice, and dialogue. The protagonist doesn’t feel like my character. The things I say don’t seem to matter. My high charisma is used to squeeze a few extra caps out of quest-givers and little else.

The term ‘RPG’ is pretty loose. We could argue for days about what is and what isn’t. But for me, an important part of any good RPG is being able to create and shape a character that’s unique to you. My Fallout 4 vault dweller, however, is vaguely the same as everyone else’s—he just wears a different hat. I mean, it’s a really nice hat. An ushanka I found in a bin. But it’s not enough. There’s no feeling of ownership.

The restrictions of the new dialogue wheel and the addition of a voiced protagonist have stripped away any chance to give your character a distinct personality. They’re either a good guy, or a sarcastic good guy. The single voice on offer is so obviously tailored to fit a generic-looking white guy—like the one they used in the E3 demo—that it sounds weird coming out of anyone else. These limitations feel out of place in a game that offers so much freedom elsewhere. I feel more attached to the rickety old shack I built in Sanctuary than the boring, unfunny dude I’m playing as.

And these frustrating restrictions extend beyond your appearance. Previous Fallout games let you set traits, perks, skills, and tag skills on top of your base SPECIAL stats: Fallout 4 has perks, SPECIAL, and nothing else. This new system might be more streamlined and elegant—and I like some things about it—but it’s yet another example of Bethesda reducing the ways in which you can fine-tune your character.

I’m sure they had their reasons. Fallout is a mega-selling mainstream series now, and they obviously want to make it more accessible. Not everyone wants a super deep RPG. But the consequence of that is making that puddle even shallower. Fallout 4 has all the hallmarks of an RPG—quests, experience points, towns, trading, companions—but it’s all pretty superficial. It’s like a tribute act to an RPG: fine at first glance, but look a little closer and you realise that ‘Elvis’ is actually a guy in a cheap wig.

The quests are just as bad. After 30 hours of play, I can’t think of a single one that offered me the option to avoid, charm, or otherwise think my way out of combat. Maybe I’ve just been unlucky and all the rich, branching, interesting quests are still out there waiting to be discovered, but I doubt it. While Phil was reviewing it for us, every time I turned around to look at his monitor he was firing a gun.

You occasionally get the option to hack a turret, but that’s about as rich as its systems get. Some of the level design feels more like an FPS than an RPG: a series of rooms linked with corridors, filled with enemies waiting patiently for you to kill them. There’s the odd terminal which fills in the backstory of your surroundings, and some environmental storytelling, but it’s not enough to mask the fact that many of these places are just, when you really boil it down, elaborate shooting galleries.

For a resource-starved post-apocalyptic wasteland, guns and ammo are everywhere. You can’t walk five feet without lasers or bullets whizzing past your head. Within a few minutes of being unfrozen in the intro sequence you find a pistol and a stash of bullets. Bethesda obviously love designing guns, but perhaps they should have dedicated that energy to making characters that don’t look like sentient shop mannequins or writing dialogue that isn’t so stilted and lifeless.

Even after all that, I still can’t wait to get home and play Fallout 4 tonight. The sense of discovery—of picking a direction, wandering, and wondering what beautiful scenery, bizarre creature, or weird little story you’ll run into—is as fun as it’s been since I first played Morrowind. But it’s disheartening to see Fallout’s RPG foundations slowly ebb away. I’m sure Bethesda could make a really rich, complex game like the originals if they wanted, but they don’t have to. Fallout 4 sold 1.2 million copies in 24 hours. Why break the formula? But that doesn’t mean I have to like it. "

This is an interesting angle, which as far as i know we haven't looked at it.

Thoughts?

GOTY

is The Witcher 3 :D

Dosent even look like a good game to me. Ill wait for the christmas sale on steam. Dialog looks like crap, graphics and gameplay are dated, rpg elements removed.

What is good exactly? Release a ugly game full of bugs, and expect the modders to fix it.

Wiedźmin brought me here XD.

Haven't played it but yeah i can relate. It's perfect for exploration lovers tho.

@kozio Nice :D

Fallout 4 is more like Borderlands and Destiny than an rpg.

'The protagonist doesn’t feel like mycharacter'

How do you feel when you play Witcher 3 then?

Yeah, I feel the same way as this guy. As I was playing through, I noticed that you don't get much choice in quests. It's pretty much, go here and clear this area, or pick up this piece of hardware--kill a bunch of "bad guys" while you're at it.

There was one interesting quest I ran into at the bar in Diamond City, but that was pretty much it so far in 25 or so hours. Everything else has been the same crap over and over. It's kind of fun, but I feel it beginning to wane in that department.

Also, Diamond City is the biggest city, but only houses like 25 people? There are double the raiders and supermutants just living outside of the place. Diamond City wouldn't last long realistically. In fact, it would have died out quite long ago with all of these enemies about. Oh, and the 2, count them, 2 guards at the door.

@mjorh: I agree its no RPG.

I don't care what kind of game it is or isn't I fucking love Borderlands. Currently playing through the Handsome Collection and it reminds me constantly why I fell in love with games in the first place.

@blueinheaven: Borderlands is at its peak when played in Co-op mode! And with Geralt you feel like a real bad-ass Witcher , the way it's meant to be.

There's nothing "realistic" about this game, that's one of the off-putting reasons for me...

They need to hurry the f up and release Borderlands 3 already, been waiting for ages. And i'm not talking about Borderlands 2 reskin with a different villain/story but a true next gen evolution for the series. Hopefully Gearbox understands *after the poor sales/reviews of the Presequel, they better do*.

You're dodging like crazy here. It doesn't matter if Borderlands is better in co-op it's a brilliant game in SP I don't know why you even mentioned it.

Anyway, you whine your character doesn't feel yours in FO4 yet you play Geralt in Witcher and you feel 'bad ass'. Er, that's not you, that's the character. YOU don't 'feel' anything, you're just playing out someone's story. You're not 'you'. You're Geralt.

How can you criticise one game that lets you develop your own character against another that absolutely does not allow you to put your personality on the game in any shape or form?

They're hiring it for it now. I think they know the next one needs to be a generation above the presequel. These devs I will give a free pass to they absolutely know how to make amazing games I can't wait for the next one. Claptrap is the funniest fucker in the universe lol.

Actually, i was pointing out how Borderlands is great and how it's even better in Co-op.

The Witcher 3 focuses on Story-telling and does a better job at RPG elements , i am Geralt of Rivia in The Witcher 3 , i make the choices ,i shape up the character throughout the game , i am playing the role of a character with reasonable back story... on the other hand, Fallout 4 fails at RPG elements and i play RPG for its RPG elements, i don't care if there's a tool for me to make a character or not ....hell i don't even bother with it, it's personal preference tho , not gonna argue with that, the fact is that Fallout 4 is not a good RPG, end of story.

Telling us what we already know.

I have no problem with you saying FO4 is not a good RPG. I haven't played it yet, but to big up Witcher 3 in the same breath? It's an action game with really vague RPG elements. It's fucking Golden Axe with modern graphics and a story. I don't see how you can consider yourself to be roleplaying a character that is already completely defined right down to appearance, voice, background and very limited choice of weapons and skills. FO4 must really suck if it makes Witcher 3 somehow appear to be an RPG in your reckoning.

What I really don't get are the people who constantly harp on Fallout 4 and its flaws...but act like Witcher 3 is just a flawless fucking masterpiece with its floaty combat/movement, shitastic menu/inventory system and map that is really hard to follow (similar to DA: Inquisition in that regard)

Witcher 3 is a big technical achievement in terms of its visuals for an open world game and a well crafted story in an open world RPG...but it isn't nearly the kind of landmark that people are making it out to be.

I've had a helluva lot more fun exploring the Commonwealth than I did the game world of Witcher 3.

C'mon , TW3 is a RPG. Define "vague" . Man that's the definition of "roleplaying".

Inventory management improved with patches, like some weeks after the release.

Fallout 4 has a lotta flaws, from its weak story to mediocre shooting mechanics and ugly-ass graphics.

I've never once played a Bethesda game expecting a storyline that's going to blow my tits off (with maybe the exception of Morrowind, but I consider that more "lore" based than story based). The whole "storyline" crap is incredibly overblown in videogames anyway. Take some of the greatest storylines in videogame history and they still pale in comparison to your average, run of the mill novel or Hollywood flick.

The shooting mechanics, while certainly not on some Bungie or F.E.A.R. level, are sure as hell improved over Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Hell, in those games I used the VATS system on every damn enemy that I came across. Now? I literally use it 1/4 as much as I use to.

And as far as the graphics are concerned, I have no idea what it looks like on consoles. But on PC turned up to ultra? I'm not seeing the big complaint here. The character models leave a little something to be desired but I think the actual game world looks more than fine.

"good game, bad x" is, was, and always will be a stupid argument. There is nothing gained out of a game being more of x, especially when more of the thing that makes it a "good game" is an actual improvement. I have no doubt that New Vegas and the first 2 Fallout, are absolutely better games, but the fact that homeboy was expecting that from Bethesda is lol tier.

The whole "good game, bad [insert genre]" argument is asinine. If a game is good and it's an RPG, then it's a good RPG. The inverse holds true as well: a bad game can't be a good [insert genre].

@silversix_: the presquel was made by a different division of the 2K. But you are right. I think in Borderlands three there should be a character each who specializes in a different element. One should be great with fire, one be great with electric, and one be great with corrosive. There really isn't much gameplay wise you can do to push the game foreword unless you allow for 6 or 8 player co-op or something.

What I take away from this is that you can't please everyone. I remember how people use to complain about the shooting mechanics being so terrible you had to rely on VATS. Bethesda has improved that mechanic a lot, but get no credit. You simply can't please everyone.

I'm aware that it was made by a different studio but the fact that the series haven't seen any advancements is one of the reasons the game was poorly received. Think of it, what evolution has this series received since the very first Borderlands back in 2009? Not much. Not much at all. How is it that even all those years later we're still unable to customize our character's appearance? Why are we still limited to 4 players co-op (IF Borderlands 3 is limited to the same amount), why are raids only 1 boss in 1 room? etc. Its archaic. If borderlands 3 is next gen only (which is probably the case), i expect huge differences *in the right direction* compared to Borderlands 2. If that's not the case... FAIL.

You guys keep saying this and I honestly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

I sunk a couple hundred hours into both Fallout 3 and New Vegas over the years and the biggest distinction that I take away is that FO 3 was set in the DC wastelands and New Vegas was set in a fucking desert.

Oh, and New Vegas had iron sights on guns and different ammo types (which I never even bothered to use, and frankly, didn't even make sense). Oh, and I almost forgot...you got 1 perk every two levels instead of every level.

Are you really putting that much of an emphasis on the faction choices between siding with Mr. House, the NCR or Caesars's Legion?

Because what the hell did that really influence besides some little 1 minute interlude at (technically) the end of the game?

@silversix_: Yeah 3 games that are pretty similar but I give Borderlands the crown as the shooting is at least satisfying and funny. Fallout is too slow for a game that is all about shooting and nothing else. I can't speak for Destiny as I haven't played it.

Who the hell would call FO4 a rpg? It's basically FarCry5

I'm pretty sure I've been making this point for the past two years.

A Good Game and a Good RPG are two extremely different things...... are they mutually exclusive ? Nope....... but 90% of the time its either one or the other.

Edit: or none of the above.

In general your character builds mattered more, whatever limitation you had impacted what quests you could and could not do, were equipped for, and that added a lot. In Fallout 3 you can be anything and everything on one playthrough. You're not role-playing, you're building up your own Superman who did everything. Made New Vegas more replayable, a proper faction system added more to play driven narratives along the way, there were system checks, you can actually play the game without ever firing a bullet, properly, without relying on a glitch, because the game is built with the idea in mind that you are building a character, and then role playing as the character.

It wasn't just end game mate, mid game can be entirely different on subsequent playthroughs. Fallout 3? Not so much. New Vegas is also a better built setting, it's still using an ugly ass engine, and Obsidian chokes at a Peyton Manning level when it comes to nailing the atmosphere of Vegas, especially that one night club. But, their setting is built logically and meant to be more of a place. Naturally it becomes more boring to explore, that's sort of the thing that happens when you create a more believeable space that actually is built with the idea in mind of things like what does this town eat or drink. Bethesda in contrast makes amusement parks, they make things that add to their hiking sim for you to go "what's over there" and for what's over there to be something at least different or distinct. It's varied in that regard, it's also completely artificial and ridiculous, the opening of that game completely destroyed an suspension of disbelief when a group of people built a town not next to a water source, but a live nuke. That isn't even used for any practical reason in that town.

@GreySeal9:

Nope..... it makes perfect sense but only in the context of RPGs.

It wouldn't make sense for any other genre. I can't say Gears is a Good Shooter but a bad game. But I can say Mass Effect 2 is a Bad RPG but a good Game.

Simply because the two have different priorities.

If you can play through all of New Vegas without firing a bullet, then you must be some kind of gaming messiah.

And no, New Vegas wasn't entirely different throughout multiple playthroughs. If you side with Mr. House, you piss off the NCR and Caesar's Legion. If you side with Caesar's Legion, you piss off Mr. House and the NCR. If you side with the NCR, you piss off Mr. House and Caesar's Legion. If you side with Yes Man, you piss off everybody. Seems pretty goddamn black and white to me. Not the "grey area" that some of you guys make it out to be.

Hell, if anything, siding with Yes Man is the only remotely "grey area" choice that you get in the grand scheme of things.

If your argument is that Mass Effect 2 is a bad RPG because it's missing certain common features of the genre, I'd say that argument is bullshit. A game is not a bad example of its genre simply because it doesn't fulfill some checklist. What one person calls a bad RPG, another person might call a streamlined and therefore improved RPG.

@GreySeal9:

LoL..... RPGs don't have a checklist..... not one that everybody can agree on anyways.

Besides I'm of the oppinion that ME2 was an even better RPG than the original..... but thats only because I have a more "lenient" definition of what an RPG is. I was the one who argue that streamlining the series was a good thing.

Everybody else was like "Bring my stats back". BTW thats the thought process that leads into the Good Game Bad RPG scenario.

So, if you agree that RPGs don't have a checklist, on what basis are you distinguishing between a good game and a good RPG?

@GreySeal9:

The same basis PC Gamer uses for Fallout 4..... The Basis I used for Mass Effect 2 two years ago on this very site.

Let me give you another scenario..... you remember DmC right ?

After all the drama about Dantes hair and the dust had settle.... the final Verdict was that DmC was a great Action Game but a Bad DMC Game.

Well in Mass Effect its the samething.... only its not about the franchise..... its about the entire genre (RPGs). The things that make something a Good RPG aren't necessarily the same things that would make for a Good Game. Well then what are these "Things" ?

Well.... nobody can agree on that..... just as PC Gamer said.

Sunshine, it's a video game story, of the things I'll gas up, "moral grey area" from video game writers, from video game writers PC plebs gas up? Not even once.

As for the rest, the factions are one element of the mid game, but okay, but the fact that you actually pick a side does matter. If this was Bethesda, you'd be able to join all of them with no real impunity, that's not exactly role playing either.

@jg4xchamp:

Your use of the word Role Playing is kinda ambiguous.

Or maybe it isn't and I'm just stupid. LoL.... you know the whole debacle about: "Role Playing Games are Games where you play a role".

I sort of get what people mean bu that but honestly I'm still confused.

Not really seeing jackshit here to support your theory about New Vegas having this supposed plethora of possibilities in the game world as opposed to Bethesda's entries...

Seems like New Vegas simply has the 'Obsidian' name attached to it and you're running from there...

Oh teh ironing...

The fact that nobody can agree on that bolsters my argument, does it not?

If DmC is a good action game, isn't there something very off about saying it's a bad DMC game? Wouldn't it it be more appropriate to say that it's a very different DMC game as opposed to a bad one? To say that DmC is a bad DMC game is a result of limited thinking IMO. For instance, DMC 2 is probably more like DMC1/3/4 than DmC, but nobody would argue with a straight face that DMC 2 was a better DMC game than DmC. Why? Because DMC 2 is clearly a shittier game under any set of circumstances.

You could actually join all the gangs and do all the quests in New Reno if you followed the good order in Fallout 2

RPG mechanics in this game only make a part of it. Fallout 4 isn't just an RPG, it's an Open World Shooter with RPG elements. You can judge the elements this game takes from certain Genres like the RPG genre, but you can't judge the game and say stupid shit like "Fallout 4 is a bad RPG" because the game isn't just an RPG.

THANK YOU

@GreySeal9:

Nope.... theres nothing off about it all.

People have DMC3 As the Golden Standard for what a Good DMC game is..... anything that deviates from that DMC formula is bad.....

Its all about using different "Lenses" to judge things.

I always use the "Gameplay" lense...... I don't care what is or isn't a good DMC game or a Good RPG...... for me its always gameplay gameplay gameplay. If a game has good gameplay then who cares if its a good RPG or a DMC type game.

But I do try to familiarise myself with how other people see these games. The Mass Effect one was extremely challenging because for the life if me I could not understand why on earth people would prefer the game with inferior gameplay and level design and all that. But I eventually figured out out hence why Mass Effect is the Better RPG and Mass Effect 2 is the better game.

I think the game is fine in terms of its RPG elements.

I don't like FO4's approach to the protagonist, and prefer its nameless protagonist approach in past games. It's not that the approach itself is flawed, it's simply that the protagonist is too weak of a character compared to Shepard or Geralt. It would've worked better if they sacrificed what little character-building there is in the protagonist for a greater sense of agency.

Combat is quite decent. Both gunplay and melee combat improved immensely compared to FO3/NV.

The only thing they really really need to improve on is the UI. Gotta wait for UI mods.

@ultimateimp:

But you can say it its a bad RPG even if it isn't a RPG At all.

You can do that with anything.... I can say you're a terrible Lulu...... you can say "I'm not Lulu".... to which I can say "and thats what makes you a terribal LuLu."

The reason that makes this a stupid argument is because every genre that isn't an RPG is Bad a RPG...... its just like saying Every one who isn't Beyoncé is a Bad Beyoncé.

Its technically true but its also really dumb and pointless.

The reason why this keeps coming up is because of the Vague Definition of what an RPG is....... I'm sure somebody can actually make a good argument that counts Fallout 4 as an RPG.

So basically your argument comes to down to simply legitimizing other people's arbitrary genre requirements. Do you actually have any inherently logical reason for separating a good game from a good example of its genre?

You're a champ.

@GreySeal9:

Yes.....

To keep everybody happy. ;)

No seriously.... I'm being for real. if I don't use the "Good RPG Bad Game" Logic then what does that mean for games like Mass Effect or Even Planescape Torment which have REALLY AWFULL mechanics ?

I mean they are good RPGs right ? I think they are. But there's too many things wrong with them to call them Good Games overall. And thats why Reviews like this exist..... its to resolve this silly dilemma.

I'd like to reiterate that this doesn't happen with other Genres.... a good Shooter or Platformer ir whatever will always be a good game.