I went back to #Fallout 4, needing some attention grabbing games to get my mind off upcoming school stress.
The game is fun, but ultimately disappointing, having lost the clever commentary and humor of predecessors. It's not Fallout anymore - it's a shooter with some RPG elements in a dull landscape.
I think Far Harbor is closer to the "Fallout" feel than the rest of the game is, but even then it doesn't have much to say except "decisions and consequences?"
@thindol I must admit, after trying earlier Fallouts like 3 and NV, I completely fail to see what people like about them. They are an exercise in frustration just getting them to run, and any humour must be very American-centric since I found none. Fallout 4 is far superior in almost every way.
I understand this will be an unpopular opinion, but I am a relative newcomer to PC style games, having only played them since about 1979 (on a Commodore PET).
@shivvi I found Fallout 3 to be rather boring (but conceptually fine, and NV had the "Mother Theresa or Baby Eating" choice binary. 4 is easily playable to a modern audience while having no plot substance.
When I say "earlier Fallout" I am more referring to 1 and 2, though New Vegas flavor and humor-wise is closer to the original two games. Very well worth playing.
All the Fallout games are going to have callbacks to US references, as the game schema is based on retro-futurism circa US 1950's.
@thindol hmm... I get what you're saying, and yeah there is a lack of consequence in 4, but tbh it was just more fun.
@shivvi Basically, you're noting that Fallout 4 was easily playable mechanically, and I've been making a point about the story/flavor quality. These are two entirely different things.
It's great that you find 4 very playable and easy to get into - which is the entire point, a lot of thought went into the systems (though the pip boy interface is awful). My point is about the plot, not the systems.