Early impressions…

Originally Posted by JDR13

Also, what happened to being able to manipulate items in the game world? You can examine items in your inventory, but we can't pick things up and move them around like in previous games?

Target item and hold e. I think it was like that in previous games but I had forgot.

Originally Posted by sakichop
Target item and hold e. I think it was like that in previous games but I had forgot.

Yeah, I just discovered that a little while ago actually. It was "z" in Fallout 3.

I often seem to have companion pathing issues - last time I left a level and the robot ddn't follow…went back and found him stuck. Same with the dog. Even happens outside on occasion. The pathing is pretty shite in general. I have entered a fight before assuming companion support, only to discover they weren't following me. As for the game - I don't see why people thingk its better than FO3 - although perhaps I haven't advanced the main storyline far enogh. I don't like the levelling/perk system - I'd rather level slowly and have major incremental improvements to stats/skills. At the moment it feel like 'levels' come too quickly. I suppose that's what you get for throwing away the level cap. The interface is also counter-intuitive in some cases, although no as bad as I'd been led to believe. As for the graphics 'OK' but nothing advanced - they can get away with it since the world is meant to be drab and run-down.

As far as graphics go, are there open world games anywhere near as large as Fallout or Skyrim that have better graphics? Most of the time, people mention much smaller games when mentioning really good graphics. If you have to draw 1,000,000 items it is much harder to do that than a game that has 45 items

Witcher 3 is the only one I can think of and it is much smaller than Fallout 4.

GTA's for instance . As for Witcher comparison, the way I understand it, FO4 is roughly the size of Skyrim( Witcher is nearly three times larger) but with less environmntal obstacles… so much smaller seems a funny way to go about comparing it.

Never played GTA, so I've not seen the explorable area. A lot of games say they match Skyrim, but they only talk about the above ground stuff and never include the 200+ dungeons and all the area that is below ground. If you took all the dungeons of Skyrim and put them outside, the game grows by 3000%. Of course it is very repetitive after awhile, but that's a problem with all these big games.

Originally Posted by crpgnut
Never played GTA, so I've not seen the explorable area. A lot of games say they match Skyrim, but they only talk about the above ground stuff and never include the 200+ dungeons and all the area that is below ground. If you took all the dungeons of Skyrim and put them outside, the game grows by 3000%. Of course it is very repetitive after awhile, but that's a problem with all these big games.

GTAV has a much larger map than Skyrim, it has to accommodate for airplanes (including jets) and speedy vehicles. I wouldn't say the game is about exploration though.

Also, you are grossly exaggerating Skyrim's interior overall size, but they do bring 3000% more fun to the exploration factor, I'll give you that one.

Originally Posted by azarhal
Also, you are grossly exaggerating Skyrim's interior overall size, but they do bring 3000% more fun to the exploration factor, I'll give you that one.

I would never do such a thing! After two days of nothing but Fallout 4, I come back to work and it is an incredibly slow day……………………………………….. ………………………………………….. ………………………….

Crpgnut must be smoking Jet these days.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
Crpgnut must be smoking Jet these days.

That comment about The Witcher 3 being much smaller did have me raising an eyebrow.

Also in the context of drawing lots of objects and the need to drop graphics quality because of it. Underground areas are MUCH less taxing to render than long outside draw distances without object fade.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Also in the context of drawing lots of objects and the need to drop graphics quality because of it. Underground areas are MUCH less taxing to render that long outside draw distances without object fade.

Yeah and the taxing nature of high draw distance + high object density becomes even more of a concern when you're flying around. I do like being able to go 3rd person in a vertibird and pan around though.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
GTA's for instance .

GTA5 is twice as big on your HDD compared to FO4 (and TW3).

But to 100% GTA5 (means solving main and subcontent) you'll need less time than FO4 or TW3. I did the game to 80% in less than 100 hours and then decided not to bother with bloody driving simulator wannabe any more for some side quests.
The map is bigger, but that's only because it's used to provide enough of tracks variety for Need For Speed clone integrated inside.

Since FO4 and TW3 don't include car chasing, there was no need to make maps even bigger than they are. Yet, both TW3 and FO4, although lesser with HDD size, contain enormous amount of content variety. GTA5… Not so much.

Tips :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiTh7mGG51o

Originally Posted by Pladio
Tips :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiTh7mGG51o

Ah.. I was wondering what happened to the 'Wait' function that used to be in FO3. I would never have figured that out on my own.

Some nice base building tips in that video as well.

Well a bloat fly a little off path nearly killed me. Lol!

I guess I'll stay near the road for now.

Just have to say that as someone who was born and lived my first 42 years in and/or around the Boston area (and miss it out in western NY) I am constantly geeking out to the various locations.

haha. Anyone encounter the mirelurks near the Robotic Disposal Site? They were kicking my patoitie. Then I got an idea and it worked flawlessly.

I really dislike how raising Intelligence also increases how much XP you gain. There are several perks I want that require me to boost my Int, but I already feel like I'm leveling up too fast.

This despite having a mod that cuts quest XP by 1/2.

The INT boost for XP is pretty small, I've found. I went up 3 points from clothing at one point, and I tested the increase. It was like 25-30 XP more for a quest that gives you 325 or something close to that. If 3 points is less than 10% - I can't see it being a problem, though I don't know if the increase is exponential, as it may well be.

It doesn't seem to affect the monster XP - at least not so far.

I'm playing with default XP rate - and I'm only level 17 after almost 30 hours. Considering how leveling seems to slow down as you gain levels, and they have perks and mobs for well over level 50 characters, I'm quite happy with the rate of leveling so far. That would make me level 50, at most, after around 90 hours.

That said, I do a hell of a lot more free-roam exploration than quest solving, so that could be a significant factor.

I expect to be "full" of my first game after around 100 hours. At that point, I don't expect to be maxed out - or even close to it. To me, that's fine.

I could never play these games for hundreds of hours in a row.