>Combat is much more fun >The stories are both bad >The world of 4 feels so much more fun to explore than the green shitstain that is three's map >The companions in 4 have much more personality (Except Fawkes of course) >In base game 3 you get two faction choices (Good guy Brotherhood or bad guy Enclave) In Fallout 4 you get 4 choices that all could be debated on which are morally correct >The BOS Leaders (Maxon > The Old Guy and his Tranny daughter) >Kid stuck in a Fridge quest is just as stupid as the: you only need 35 skill points to disarm a fucking NUKE
I think I've made my point but if you can come up with any counters feel free to post them Yea Forums
>>The world of 4 feels so much more fun to explore than the green shitstain that is three's map
Maybe but there's nothing to do. Fo3 had the Republic of Dave, BoS Outcasts, Andale, and Tenpenny Tower. Fo4 has every place filled with raiders except Vault 81, Diamond City, and Goodneighbor. And ultimately Fo4's world outside of Boston feels like shit, whereas Fo3 has the opposite problem.
Even when it comes to raider pits in Fallout 3, they were far better: Evergreen Mills, Paradise Falls, the Lincoln Memorial and the Pitt itself all had reasons to exist and only one of them was always hostile. Even then, if you had enough bad karma raiders wouldn't attack you and you could trade with some which is Fo4 does not have to it's massive determent. Only issue is that the Talon Company are always hostile, but they were also sparsely distributed and were largely used to breakup the monotony compared to the Gunners being everywhere in Fo4.
Also why both stories are shitpoor Fo4's is clearly worse, even though they had an interesting backstory with the Commonwealth Provisional Government. All of this got thrown into the toilet because Bethesda didn't want to write an actual named quest about it, or figure out how to make it work in their awful faction system.
The only good thing Fo4 has is serviceable gunplay. But it doesn't do anything with that and it's Borderlands-style loot system ruins any attachment you get to any individual weapon.
I've still never played 4. Should I even bother? I've heard it's horse shit.
Easton Reed
Nothing more annoying than finding more legendary leather gear when you are already lvl 40+. Yea you can sorta cheese it with saves, but then you could be spending an hour just relooting to get something not shit.
John Adams
Based retard
Liam Hernandez
Fo4's problems and limits become obvious about 12 hours in, the early game is ok as a survival game/mild RPG but once you start really exploring outside of the starting area you'll either notice how there's nothing to do except the main quest. The MQ itself is ok for the first half, but it hits a wall when it forces the player to pick a faction in order to build a teleporter to enter CIT, and after the player gets there nothing makes any sense. From there it only gets worse as you are forced to pick a side for the final 2-3 quests. Not helping things is that the BoS's ending sequence is the same as the one they did in Fo3, meanwhile the most interesting end quest (for the railroad) really falls flat for what they were building to. CIT's ending is just pathetic because a bloo bloo bloo your kid died but you have a sex doll clone of your wife.
It's like this by design, Beth knows that most people won't play more than a few hours so they frontload all the effort/quality into the first three hours.
Christian Morgan
>fallout 4 and 3 Literally a piss vs poo situation. No one should care which one is viler and more disgusting to consume and avoid both at all costs
i agree with you user fallout 4 was fun it was in depth it doesnt have to be a perfect RPG to be a game worth playing till the end
Jaxon Butler
Yes. Say what you will, but Fo3 and Fo4 were skillfully engineered to ensure the first few hours of content are good no matter what you do. Both have fuckhuge intro sequences that soak up about an hour (for a totally new player) while the starting areas will keep most people occupied for another five or six at least. Beth knows most players won't pick up the game again after they put it down, or they'll only play once or twice more without finishing the game.
The second half of the game was always an afterthought and usually made by another team, especially when most of the battles are in interior spaces that can be made concurrent to the worldspace construction. This is really obvious in Fo3 because of Tranquility Lane, Vault 87, Raven Rock, and the Jefferson Memorial (same for the ending DLC Broken Steel, which uses new tunnels added under Old Olney, Pennsylvania Avenue and a separate worldspace for the 2nd sat relay and Adams AFB).
Their business model worked VERY well until Fallout 76, because obviously this sort of model cannot work with a subscription-based service and not a boxed product.
agree OP. It really sucks about the RPG mechanics but I thought the rest of the game was an improvement over Fallout 3.
Lucas Bennett
but fallout 4's intro is garbage. the problem with a perks-based skill system rather than a class-based one is that the first few hours of the game are unbearably tedious because your character is shit at everything rather than being shit at most things and decent at one or two things this is the same problem as skyrim, replaying skyrim is a fucking chore until you're like level 15
Landon Hill
>it was in depth Please educate us on the intricacies of the kindergartner gold star sticker system Fallout 4 uses in place of the old system.
Kevin Rogers
Fo4's intro is great if you're a normie, it's flashy and has color and wow bombs then you're suddenly shooting people. It's shit, but it at least looks and feels good if you don't know any better.
Jaxon Morales
>And ultimately Fo4's world outside of Boston feels like shit Far Harbor was good
