Fallout 4 - Fails at the Hands of Witcher 3

It's not only a mistake, it's a real falacy that (not only this article, but many other articles, reviews and user comments) are trying to pass as real about Fallout 4: YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME. AND NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO KILL. As someone already wrote on this thread IT IS possible to do a no-kill run of Fallout 4 (not quite pacifist, as people will die, but not at the hands of the players). I'm yet to see a pacifist or no-kill run of Witcher 3 (and I'll never see it, because it's probably impossible, the way the game was designed)
That hasn't change much from previous Bethesda's games: True, there are a lot of quests (mainly the radiant ones) that tell go clean up this place, go and kill raiders on another place. Radiant quests (hell, none of Minutemen's quests at all) are necessary to complete the game. Don't like them? Ignore them. Although I've finished the game with the Minutemen, I started ignoring those radiant quests (didn't even had to use a mod, because I don't like using mods). Just sent Preston Garvey to Sanctuary and established my HQ in another settlement. When the timing for the radiant quests terminated Preston wasn't there to remind of other problems elsewhere.
There are still the warning of settlements and checkpoints being attacked, but I can choose to ignore those too.
Finally there's character building. You can have Charisma 10 and choose the last two perks so you can make raiders and mutant creatures surrender and even help you, issuing commands. If you are so eager to be peaceful you don't even have to wait a long time for that, just start the game with an extremely charismatic character, don't go into Concord before you level up a few times (you can even gain experience building stuff in Sanctuary, so it's not that complicated). Though that method doesn't solve all problems, it does reduce substancially the ammount of violence in the game. If even after these you still feel like a killing machine, go into sneak, ninja and similar perks. Don't be a power armored soldier, be a sneaky fellow and avoid being seen (there's a lot of stealth boys lying around too).
A non issue created to fuel up discussions.

Originally Posted by Paul
Fallout 4 is a trash RPG and trash Fallout game, but as a shooter Fallout spin-off, it is decent 7 out of 10 game. But the article is completely right - all the amazing things Black Isle and Obsidian did in previous Fallout games, Bethesda chucked right out the window in favour or insane meaningless violence and moronic fetchkill quests.

Witcher 3 annihilates it, writing and design-wise. Fallout 4 could not elicit emotion within me even with a fucking CANCER OF MY OWN CHILD. That is how badly it is written.

However I am glad Fallout 4 is the lowest rated Bethesda game since 2002 and isn't a GOTY anymore. Hopefully it will force Bethesda to hire some actually good writers and designers, because they have great worldbuilders and it is a shame to see such talent go to waste on such vapid game.

Fallout has been my favourite franchise since 1997, I love the world..I want to see it get better treatment. If Bethesda cannot improve…then I wish at least Obsidian would get another chance with it.



That is weid. I went there, raiders attacked me without provocation, and the robots did too afterwards.

But even if they didn't, his point stands. Total waste of interesting location in favour of more meaningless violence.

That's some very sane comment. While I'm quite a fan of Beth's games generally speaking, they would eventually become another New World Computing if they go on like this.

Witcher is rather story-driven. Once finished, there's almost no replay value since you meet exactly the same charming NPC's that you can hardly forget. Fallout 4 is different. NPC's are no so important in FO4. What important is exploration. What is waiting for you behind the corner? Replay value is higher. Both games are good.

Underrail beats both

Fallout 4 and Witcher 3 are both great games. But they are different.

If a gamer has a relatively rigid set of standards defining what is and is not personally acceptable to them then chances are they will rule out one, or or even both, games.

I enjoyed many many hours playing each of these very different games. But I'm not about trying to dictate other gamer's play styles or enjoyment -- which is to say; your mileage may vary and rightly so.

__

I don't think you can even compare both games. One has a concise and rich world filled with interesting characters and dilemmas, the other has a world filled with illogical situations and dumb characters. One has some of the best writing we've seen in AAA games in a long, long time, the other has cringeworthy character performances that are so bad it kind of blinds you to how bad the writing is. One has a pretty decent UI, the other is consolified to no end. One has good graphics (not as good as it could have), the other is still using a 10 year old engine (that was, at the time, a rehash of a 8 year old engine).

One has sex, the other doesn't.

I'm not saying you can't say one is better than the other (whichever one), I'm just saying comparisons are hard to draw, to say the least.

Originally Posted by Archangel
Underrail beats both

As awesome as Underrail is, it doesn't beat BOTH of them in the writing department

Originally Posted by Lev
Witcher is rather story-driven. Once finished, there's almost no replay value since you meet exactly the same charming NPC's that you can hardly forget. Fallout 4 is different. NPC's are no so important in FO4. What important is exploration. What is waiting for you behind the corner? Replay value is higher. Both games are good.

How's there any replay value in Fallout 4? New SPECIAL system with no level cap and infinitely increasable stats, plus all the respawns, means you can master everything in one playthrough. Obviously you can explore everything in a single playthrough. And you can come pretty damn close to doing everything for every faction in one playthrough, if you play your cards right. The storyline and, in particular, the ending is so simplistic that I fail to see any appeal at all in multiple playthroughs. I'd be bored to tears playing that game a 2nd time. Might as well just do everything you want to do in a single playthrough.

Originally Posted by Morbus
I'm just saying comparisons are hard to draw, to say the least.

Well, to cut to the chase, you're saying it's hard to draw comparisons between a Toyota and a Ferrari?

Originally Posted by Stingray
How's there any replay value in Fallout 4? New SPECIAL system with no level cap and infinitely increasable stats, plus all the respawns, means you can master everything in one playthrough. Obviously you can explore everything in a single playthrough. And you can come pretty damn close to doing everything for every faction in one playthrough, if you play your cards right. The storyline and, in particular, the ending is so simplistic that I fail to see any appeal at all in multiple playthroughs. I'd be bored to tears playing that game a 2nd time. Might as well just do everything you want to do in a single playthrough.

Are a you a "real" role player (I mean pen & paper role player)?. If you are (or were) your question about the need for a second playthrough is strange. Though I do not agree with you about the game and will certainly replay it, the question remains that it is absurd to play for all the faction at the same time just because you can.
Unless you are having fun playing them all against each other, and that I can understand, creating another character for a playthrough allied to factions that are incompatible with all else (the Brotherhood and the Institute) is role playingish thing to do.

Originally Posted by Morbus
As awesome as Underrail is, it doesn't beat BOTH of them in the writing department

It beats Fo4 in that and since I am not a fan of cinematic storytelling for me it beats TW3 as well.

Originally Posted by Morbus
I don't think you can even compare both games. One has a concise and rich world filled with interesting characters and dilemmas, the other has a world filled with illogical situations and dumb characters.

Are you comparing The Wicher 2 with Fallout 4? Because, let's face it, no matter the dedication CDPR has to it's fans, when they decided to almost abandon the literary universe where Geralt was born they created something of a DA: Origins that does not feel like a MMORPG.
1) Ciri, the girl Geralt loves as an adopted child, was never featured in the previous entries and, all of a sudden, makes an appearance as the daughter of the wrong father (she should be the princess of Cintra) and she IS the main quest. I really couldn't care less about her, Geralt never remembered her before (and it wasn't because of his bouts of amnesia, because everybody was helpful enough to recall all the scantly clad sorcerecess he had sex with, but not his reason for living…
2) Though Witchers are not meant to delve in political affairs, Geralt was always a wild card. In the previous instalments he had the oportunity to make the difference siding with the factions we chose. So, little political affairs, aside from one or two quests.
3) Another thing this Witcher lacks: social comment. The guettos where the non-humans lived are all gone, the possibility to fight for the oppressed also. It's a personal story, ok. But that doesn't mean they had to forget everything else.
4) The Witcher 3 is a nice low fantasy setting, with a medieval feel. That's good. But where's the really different touch the books added to a fantasy world, mixing it with folklore and fairy tales? Both previous entries had it, this one does not. For fantasy lovers that might not be a problem, for fans of the books probably is. And for myself, who don't like fantasy, the thing that made the previous games playable was that mixture that made me feel that I wasn't quite playing a fantasy game.
Overall, even with much better graphics, a semi-open world (can't be a true open world when regions are opened and closed during the storyline) and better voice acting, I would always choose The Witcher 2.

This thread right here is a perfect example of why nothing (usually) comes out of comparison between two "competitive" titles…fanboys of one game instantly see another as a threat and go about throwing hyperboles and oversimplifying things, which only makes them look like simpletons.
MigRib, do you actually understand what exactly is written in that article?

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
This thread right here is a perfect example of why nothing (usually) comes out of comparison between two "competitive" titles…fanboys of one game instantly see another as a threat and go about throwing hyperboles and oversimplifying things, which only makes them look like simpletons.
MigRib, do you actually understand what exactly is written in that article?

My posts were not addressed to the article, if I wanted to that I would go to the site where the article was posted and comment. Though I disagree with some things in that article (and it has a ridiculous title, who the hell wants to dance with Geralt? He would probably smash my feet), I do not disagree enough to bother posting a comment at Polygon. What I was doing was addressing RPGWatch comments. So, please, do go on calling me fanboy, simpleton and unable to understand a Polygon article. I enjoy being insulted by bears (it's a sexual thing).

EDIT: By the way, I really don't know which of my posts you were mentioning, so I take it was the last one. In that case, as in these discussions everything ends up being labeled as fanboyism, I would like to declare that I was a Witcher fanboy untill I had the displeasure of playing the 3rd. I agonized throught it, trying to find something of my love for that universe, and dispaired by the time Ciri died because I was too protective or some BS like that.

Good job, Jar Jar Ribs. Keep at it.

Having at least one member bashing Bethesda's games on every thread is a RPGWatch policy or is it a coincidence? Hmm, or maybe that Lud1 guy sold here a lot of the Bethesda hating tickets he is always advertising.

Chicken Fails at the Hands of Steak

Chocolate Fails at the Hands of Butter Pecan

Running Fails at the hands of Martial Arts

Schubert Fails at the Hands of Mozart

Twilight Zone Fails at the Hands of X-Files

Flintstones Fails at the Hands of The Simpsons

Cherry Fails at the Hands of Grape

Melville Fails at the Hands of Shakespeare

Spiderman Fails at the Hands of Superman

and

Codex Fails at the Hands of RPGWatch

:-)

Originally Posted by Hastar
Witcher 3 was a good game but I have to agree it was almost like watching a movie. But it was a damn pretty movie. Think I will finally start Fallout 4 soon. Been having a blast with Darkest Dungeon and Underrail. Guess the little companies have been giving me more gaming pleasure lately. Been having my eye on The Quest also I may never get to FO4 hehe.

The game is epic and huge. I'm 65-70 hrs in and I feel like I've hardly done anything. The sheer amount of quests and places to explore is overwhelming. I'm guessing right now that there has to be more than 200 hours of game play. And the combat is great. Don't pay any attention to people complaining about the graphics. If you have a good gaming PC, there are already a lot of mods and a new beta to take care of that. I'm only running the new beta version and the environments look great with the addition of HBAO+.

Originally Posted by joxer
Polygon rides again.

Next stupid title:
Tomb Raider fails at the hands of Fallout4 which fails… erm… something and that also fails… etc

Is that site real?

Spoiler

I like TW3 more than FO4, but to say FO4 is a fail I cannot understand. It's absolutely not, it's a great game (once you put no_radiant garbage and no respawn mods ofc ).

Why anyone puts any value into what so called 'gaming journalists' have to say is beyond me. You may as well choose your games based on what Angry Joe or Total Biscuit has to say. I just read comments on Steam and watch Youtube gameplay videos.

Originally Posted by Hyperion
The game is epic and huge. I'm 65-70 hrs in and I feel like I've hardly done anything. The sheer amount of quests and places to explore is overwhelming. I'm guessing right now that there has to be more than 200 hours of game play. And the combat is great. Don't pay any attention to people complaining about the graphics. If you have a good gaming PC, there are already a lot of mods and a new beta to take care of that. I'm only running the new beta version and the environments look great with the addition of HBAO+.

There is hundreds of hours of play in F4.

Just Working the settlements alone and getting them all tidy and ready to defend is a whole game in itself.

This thread is proof that click-bait works.

double