Review 13 Shocking Facts about Fallout 4 That Will Forever Change the Way You Think about RPGs

[sstacks]

I'd say sstacks has the voice for it, but it'd take him like 23 youtube episodes to complete it.

And here I was minding my own business.

If the Codex truly wants an audio book version, I'd consider doing it for the experience.

 

[grotsnik]

And yet I still clocked somewhere around 90 hours of gameplay. Hm.

I'm still having fun after 100 hours of playing it though, so oh well.

And yet I probably got 2-3 times more playtime and fun out of Fallout 4...

Area man: ‘If this game’s so bad, why did I spend 300 hours playing it?’

On reading a negative review of his favourite game, local man Jed Jones offered a scathing counter-argument based on the amount of time he’d spent playing it.

‘Sure,’ Jones stated, ‘it’s a mind-numbing series of repetitive shoot-em-up sequences with lazy gameplay and no meaningful character creation. That must be why I’ve logged over 12 days on Steam. Whatever you say, guy.’

Jones went on to address criticisms of illogical storytelling and linear quest structures by pointing out that he’d unlocked all 197 achievements for the game and bought every piece of DLC, even restarting with multiple characters ‘just to play through the whole thing in one go.’

‘Everyone has their own opinion,’ Jones said, when asked to comment on the game’s various incohesive and wildly incoherent additions to a pre-existing setting. ‘All I know is, a lot of people enjoyed the game. I think that reviewer is just doing it for the attention.’

He added that the wholesale removal of dialogue options, skill checks, varied character builds, factions, branching quest paths, established lore elements and tactical gameplay could be easily dismissed as objective criticisms, since ‘that’s not what I play these games for’, and concluded by pointing out that the game had won an award from the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences, ‘and they gave it to Dragon Age: Inquisition last year, so you know it’s legit.’

 

[laclongquan]

Gawdamnit~ grotsnik you nearly gave me a heartattack.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

If you can't tell parody from the real thing, the parody failed.

:1up:

Oh yeah, because sarcasm in written form is always soooooo hard to tell, isn't it?

This is the sort of tard that drops a /satire tag at the end of every joke, like a canned laugh track from a cheap sitcom. The anti-lulz.

 

[Durandal]

When people ask me why I spent over hundred years on a game I think is shit after having thoroughly played and criticized it as everyone tries to fool me into believing I must like it because I spent so much time on it, I just say:
"I expected it to get better. It didn't."
(I never actually mean this, I just play games so I can tell others on the internet how shit it is in-depth while harvesting brofists/the local variant, but it shuts most retards up who can't reason without recycled arguments)

Then the conversation shifts to people claiming I have unreasonably high standards and how there's nothing wrong with having fun with a game.
I don't particularly enjoy eating shit, and in such a case I would have already posted several reasons why I don't enjoy eating shit, as casuals with lower standards who haven't even tried the better stuff just want me to stop ruining their ideal image of a video game as I point out why the shit they like is shit. I do enjoy some objectively shitty games (as in, objectively shit in terms of mechanics, variety, level design etc.) like Drakengard 1 and the Syndicate reboot, but I don't pretend they are good, nor do I get all defensive if someone calls those games shit. Rather, I think in terms of elements which would attract people the most to said games, but I understand why said games aren't for everyone. I liked the Syndicate reboot for making me feel like a cyberpunk badass (I have a weakness for everything cyberpunk-related), but on a mechanical level it's just a popamole shooter and pales in comparison to most shooters released before 2006 in several aspects. If you like cyberpunk, try it out, if you want an engaging FPS, don't bother. Maybe every review needs another paragraph at the end where you ask the reader:
'do you like mindless FPS action and simple RPG progression? do you like wasting time on pointless minigames which have barely any effect on the main game? do you like to LARP rather than have the game react to your character's choices? do you breathe through your mouth? well, even though there are a plethora of better similar games which have more thought, effort, and love put into them, don't let me stop you from playing this game. if you want to stimulate more than three brain cells and be rewarded for thinking, then don't bother with this game'
So the reader can understand whether the game is suitable for him, and that not everything comes down to whether a game is shit or not.

What irks me most is when people who just look for mindless fun then go all out of their way to defend their poor taste in video games when a review like this one is published. 'Who cares about stuff like good game design when I had fun? How can it be shit if I had fun?' 'Everything you just said was merely subjective, so there! I disproved all your arguments, cynical bastard!'
They don't attempt to refute the provided criticism, and would rather prefer to attack everything else like tone, formatting, length, the background of the writer etc., just to not feel bad when everyone else thinks the games they are playing are crap. Any attempts at trying to refute the critique are just trash-tier arguments like 'I disagree', or 'I disagree, I thought it was fun', because most people with poor taste in video games have yet to learn how to criticize video games on a mechanical level, or else they would know themselves whether the game they are playing succeeds at what it sets out to do. Which leads me to ask: Why would you waste your time reading an in-depth review dedicated to criticizing a game on a mechanical level if you don't care about any of the stuff which is criticized? (hurr because i expected it to get better durrrrrrr) I'll admit this post is a defensive reaction to people just bashing the review for the most nonsensical reasons or because it makes them feel uncomfortable, but I'm trying to convince you non-Codexians that perhaps you shouldn't look at reviews or games for that matter as something which is either fun or unfun. It is intellectually dishonest to just wave away any discussion or criticism on the basis of something as subjective as 'fun', when there is indeed plenty that can be improved and discussed. If fun is all you look for in a game, then that's fine. No 60-page review will change your or the industry's mind. But does that mean when any serious in-depth insight is offered on a game, that it should be discarded for all the wrong reasons?

What do you seek in a review in the first place? Do you expect reviews to tell whether a game is fun? Because that's a hell of a lot more subjective than giving a multitude of explanations of the many design failures in the game. Do you expect reviews to just reinforce your own opinions? You don't need a review for that. Do you just want to know what the game is like? Go watch a video on YouTube or play the demo, then.
A review isn't going to determine whether you will enjoy a game. It might say that a game is horrible misogynist crap, but you might still find it enjoyable. It highlights what a game does good, what it does bad, what it does right, what it does wrong, and from there you are supposed to form your own opinion whether that's the kind of game you are going to play. That's where people's standards and tastes come into play. A review might criticize a game in-depth for handling shooting elements terribly, even though you prefer role-playing games and you think the role-playing elements are what makes the game good (case in point, Alpha Protocol). That doesn't mean it makes a terrible review. Some people don't care much about the subject matter and are looking for a well-designed game which should be good by default, and would rather not waste their time with games which treat them like idiots.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying a game, but it doesn't mean it should be exempt from criticism. Criticism is provided because people who liked the game or like you know you can do better. Fanboys will like almost anything with a label on it if it makes your brain produce endorphins and if your idols say it's good. Why would you settle for less if you can improve? Criticism takes a more cynical, negative tone when the developers in question have repeated the same mistakes over and over, make even worse mistakes, don't really know what they're doing, and show almost no signs of improvement. At that point you stop pretending to be nice, because the developers are most likely to not give a single shit about everything you just wrote in favor of appealing to the masses rather than making quality products. At that point you are writing for everyone else wondering what the game is like, which over time becomes preaching to the choir. (I don't really expect anyone outside the Codex to read this post anymore)

When you have played a larger variety of games of all ages and genres, when you have seen the potential video gaming holds, then you would be able to understand why the massive praise of FO4 is what many of us think a punch in the face of those who have pioneered video games and the Fallout franchise into what it used to be. Nobody in their right mind thinks that Fallout 4 is a pinnacle of game design, story, or anything really. It's just that, mindless entertainment. Even the most hardcore Codexian needs something to help turn their brain off every once in a while. That doesn't mean everything that isn't Planescape: Torment isn't worth your time, it means there is always room for improvement and new unique ideas and that we shouldn't stop where we are right now, especially when things are going downhill in terms of creativity and variety. Was humanity content with just steam engines and trains? This review is written for those who have standards when it comes to RPGs, which to a fledgling might only seem like elitarian contrarian hipsterism. This review doesn't overlook the many flaws of FO4 with the 'hey its fun' excuse, nor does it hold back any punches. It touches on many things your average YouTube personality or journalist doesn't even stop to think about, and provides many arguments on why FO4 is a poor game. Does that mean you can't enjoy FO4? No, but then again, it was written for an audience who have experienced better, and who most likely won't even bother with this shit aside from brofist harvesting.


goddamnit I really need to rethink on how I spend my free time

 

[Mustawd]

TL;DR

 

[Lhynn]

I spent over hundred years on a game

I think you should get out more.

 

[Veelq]

TL;DR

Come on bro, it would take like a minute for a fast reader like you.

 

[Mustawd]

TL;DR

Come on bro, it would take like a minute for a fast reader like you.

I actually read the whole thing in 30 seconds. It was a worthless wall of text. I was trying to be helpful for the rest of the slow readers out there.

Wait, did you even finish reading my post?

No?

 

[Jrpgfan]

Saw someone mentioning AoD and Underrail in one of the linked threads. I think this is the perfect opportunity to advertise those games in the hope that we can turn bethards and other savages out there into civilized, educated people.

Spread the word, fellow codexers. It's time to change the world.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Saw someone mentioning AoD and Underrail in one of the linked threads. I think this is the perfect opportunity to advertise those games in the hope that we can turn bethards and other savages out there into civilized, educated people.

Spread the word, fellow codexers. It's time to change the world.

Sadly those are niche games even within a niche genre. 8bit retro shovelware gets more attention and sales than the best rpgs of the year.

 

[Crooked Bee]

 

[Average Manatee]

Oh boy, I hope Sempai notices us.

 

[Bubbles]

Saw someone mentioning AoD and Underrail in one of the linked threads. I think this is the perfect opportunity to advertise those games in the hope that we can turn bethards and other savages out there into civilized, educated people.

Spread the word, fellow codexers. It's time to change the world.

I considered namedropping Voidspire Tactics or The Dwarf Run in the review, but I thought better of it (i.e. forgot about it).

It would have been something along the lines of "FO4 has moved 10,000 times more copies than Voidspire Tactics, which is incredibly sad." and "The Dwarf Run was mostly cobbled together from cheap Unity Store assets and is still more fun, interesting and coherent than this AAA game with an eight-figure budget."

 

[InD_ImaginE]

I considered namedropping Voidspire Tactics or The Dwarf Run in the review, but I thought better of it (i.e. forgot about it).

Eh, it is better not to compare FO4 to games not remotely on the same genre. While the claim that those games are more fun might rings true for codexer, it is pure personal opinion and adds nothing to the review itself. A better comparison would be against game on similar genre.

Review is pretty good Bubbles. If you have played it, how do you think FO4 compares to Borderlands series? Both are open world shooter with light RPG element. While FO4 has "cinematic story telling" and dialogue system Borderlands might not have, in the end of the day, which is better?

 

[Apexeon]

I only need 1 Fact.

Fallout 4 sucks.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

Finally read though it all and what a great read! Fallout 4 is the worst.

 

[ArchAngel]

I considered namedropping Voidspire Tactics or The Dwarf Run in the review, but I thought better of it (i.e. forgot about it).

Eh, it is better not to compare FO4 to games not remotely on the same genre. While the claim that those games are more fun might rings true for codexer, it is pure personal opinion and adds nothing to the review itself. A better comparison would be against game on similar genre.

Review is pretty good Bubbles. If you have played it, how do you think FO4 compares to Borderlands series? Both are open world shooter with light RPG element. While FO4 has "cinematic story telling" and dialogue system Borderlands might not have, in the end of the day, which is better?

Borderlands by far. It is fast, fun, it does not pretend to be something more.

 

[Infinitron]

No surprise there, he's ex-Obsidian.

Cadius was last seen:
Today at 12:55 AM

Give him a "Bethesda Game Studios" badge.

 

[A user named cat]

Borderlands is awful, it's the complete opposite of fun. It's like if you took fun, chained it up in a dungeon, forced it to read Lyric Suite's posts then unleashed it unto the world. It's Diablo with guns, minus the setting, mood and everything that made Diablo remotely interesting. It's essentially a video game gone full retard.

 

[ArchAngel]

Borderlands is awful, it's the complete opposite of fun. It's like if you took fun, chained it up in a dungeon, forced it to read Lyric Suite's posts then unleashed it unto the world. It's Diablo with guns, minus the setting, mood and everything that made Diablo remotely interesting. It's essentially a video game gone full retard.

Still better than Fo4.

 

[MicoSelva]

Good review, Bubbles. Very informative, if a bit tiring to read, and too long. It told me all I wanted to know about the game (and more), which makes it the best Fallout 4 review published so far, and probably ever (for me at least).

However, instead of SPEAL Bethesda should call their next stat system APES (Agility, Perception, Endurance, Strength). It would also be a good descriptor for people, who actually play their games (You are A.P.E.S.).

 

[Bubbles]

Good review, Bubbles. Very informative, if a bit tiring to read, and too long.

Besides the individual qualities of the review, I wonder if we could restrict the paragraph width on Codex articles somehow. At 1080p it's about 45 words per line.

 

[Darth Roxor]

At 1080p

plebs must suffer

 

[Moink]

Borderlands is awful, it's the complete opposite of fun. It's like if you took fun, chained it up in a dungeon, forced it to read Lyric Suite's posts then unleashed it unto the world. It's Diablo with guns, minus the setting, mood and everything that made Diablo remotely interesting. It's essentially a video game gone full retard.

Borderlands at least has coop going for it, anything is fun with friends.

You can also play a game where you see how many times you can bounce on peoples heads