Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The reason Fallout 4 gets a bad name is similar to the reason that Microsoft's take on Shadowrun did. You're taking an extremely iconic RPG title and turning it into a shooter. The reason companies do this is because shooters sell best on consoles, but it doesn't make any sense - you end up with a game that's 'too shootery' for Fallout fans, and 'too RPGy' for Call of Duty fans. Fallout 3 was already in a bit of a grey zone here, but Fallout 4 went well beyond the pale.

I'm a huge fan of the series but could never bring myself to play Fallout 4 because of this reason. It just 'feels' wrong, even if it actually is a perfectly enjoyable game. Kind of like I wouldn't want to play a Call of Duty RPG. Actually that might be kind of neat lol. I guess it's just because I'm more into RPGs than shooters!



But you're in a tiny minority. It's actually viewed as one of the best games of it's time.

You get that right?

Can you acknowledge that both Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 would BOTH be chosen as some of the greatest video games of the last 2 decades? Unlike, say FO76 or Starfield?

I just don't understand the tiny, yet extremely vocal, set of Bathesda haters who constantly whine on about Gamebryo or 'real' fallout.

If it's so bloody good, why was Wasteland 3 fairly meh. There's your 'old' fallout. It was a mid-level hit. Entertaining, but not an all time great. If Bathesda is so bad at writing RPGs and Obsidian are so much better, why is Outer Worlds so utterly underwhelming and boring.

Like the actual evidence and reality is in front of your face. Making a great game is hard. Bathesda have done it multiple times. And Fallout 3 + 4 are somevof those great games.

If you don't like what they did with the fallout IP, just remember, you could have got another fallout brotherhood of steel.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: