Unofficial Fallout Topic

So do all the Fo4 endings have a giant anti communist robot then? How far does this go exactly?

1 Like

You played a Fallout game without trying every single path? I mean, sure, Fo4 hardly has any real choices compared to past games, but still.

Here are the basics: You go with group A, B, C or D and kill or don’t kill group B/C and then nuke group D unless you are group D. If you’re group D you kill groups B and C and police the commonwealth.

Sure, there are small differences like Liberty Prime that add a small amount of flavor, but it’s hard to overlook that every choice is generalized besides the Institite one. They’re not made to reflect the actual factions and their goals.

If you know about what the BoS actually are, then the moment anyone said anything about nuking the Institute you’d start shaking your head. The BoS is all about taking technology from others and using it themselves. They’ve never been about preventing tech from running amok, they’re about saying bs to get tech from others, so they can use it and run amok with it themselves. They’d sooner kill/capture Institute scientists and make use of their resources as a base of operations than blow the place up.

The Railroad’s goal makes sense, since they have an actual reason to blow the place up: to stop the production and enslavement of synths.

The Minutemen are a whole different level of weird. You’d think their ending would be more focused on taking out the Gunners and diplomatically resolving things with the Institute, but nope.

This is Fallout 4’s largest problem: the writing and scenarios don’t make sense in context with the lore from past games, or the lore in the game itself. The writing, simply put, is atrocious for a choice based RPG.

Isn’t that the splinter group of the Brotherhood? As far as I understand it, the Brotherhood of Steel proper started out with this mentality, but then changed and focused on things like purifying water and helping the common people. Then there was a group who broke off, (I can’t remember the name) because they disagreed with the new way things where going. So they split off of the Brotherhood proper and returned to the older priorities, of claiming every piece of pre-war tech they can find. (Just looked it up. Brotherhood Outcasts was the name of the splinter group)

To be perfectly honest, I’ve never played any Fallout game… ever. Everything I know is from videos like the Storyteller series, Thenthapple, Oxhorn, and stuff like that. But I’ve never actually played a Fallout game. Though I would like to.

The tech monk thing is part of the Codex of the main BoS. The East Coast group is a splinter. They did change a bit when Lyons took over in Fo3, yes, and from that group splintered the outcasts. Despite this, the moment Elder Lyons died, Sarah Lyons took his place. She was then set-up to be killed in battle (terminal in Fo4), and the outcasts took hold of the East Coast chapter, grooming Maxson to follow the west coast ideology all over again.

1 Like

So if I follow this correctly, (in extreme layman’s terms) in the beginning, the Brotherhood sucked. But then it decided to stop sucking and actually be nice to everyone. But there where a bunch of people who liked the way things where before, and so they left. So the Brotherhood proper was good to everyone, until a bunch of important people died, then the outcasts came back and made things suck again.

Hahaha, pretty much. Though a little bit of Lyons’ influence seems to seep out from time to time.

1 Like

So in short, they went from bad, to good, then to both bad and good, then back to bad again, and now they’re bad but still kinda good but only a little.

1 Like

If I had money I’d buy all of them, but since I dont, all I can do us watch Oxhorn and build things with Lego.

2 Likes

76 anyone?

WEST VIRGINIA!!!

Don’t get me started on how 76 makes me feel… lol

I think it looks ok actually, it makes me think of it as practice for going big on Fallout 5.

Oh boi, here it goes:

Fallout 76 is a prime example of Fallout 4’s detrimental flaws and identity-destructive behavior. Instead of devoting resources to making a spin-off entry that made good on what Fallout fans expect from the franchise, they make a spin-off entry that further delves into the very things that had people in such a negative mood.

Skill checks and choice? NPCs and story driven narrative are gone and so are those things as a result. Didn’t like the limited responses that came as a result of the voiced protaginist? Now you have no dialogue options what-so-ever. Now we just reply in Monster Hunter pose dialect! We alll know the settlement mode was controversial, so they made it the main feature of this title! Yay!

The main “story”, if you can call it that, is most likely going to revolve around “environmental storytelling” (based on the sly PR talk they’ve used in interviews), otherwise known as Bethesda’s excuse for making cool locations that end up being meaningless to the actual exploration and gameplay, simply because it’s easier to do that then put the effort in to make a real sidequest.

Bethesda has gotten so caught up in making worlds that are AESTHETICALLY fun to explore that they’ve forgotten how to make worlds that are MEANINGFULLY fun to explore. They’ve lost their touch. An old abandoned building isn’t fun to explore when you know that modern Bethesda games hardly ever put cool sidequests or scripted events in them anymore. It’s just a lot of nothing that looks really pretty. It’s all just set pieces now.

2 Likes

It’s a spinoff, this is kind of the point. I’m saying that it get’s me excited technically, of course Fallout 5 will be more story driven than this game, this game gets me excited for a massive new world map and new gameplay elements in Fallout 5. And who said all games created in a game’s universe have to be the same kind of game. Just look at Hyrule Warriors, a big success for Nintendo when they tried something new. You’re treating this game like it’s Fallout 5, it’s not, it’s a spinoff. If this were Fallout 5, I’d be really angry to, but it’s not. This game is not an RPG, it’s a survival game, and was always intended to be a survival game. Would I have preferred Obsidian make a new game? Heck yeah, but they did this instead. So I’m just going to deal with it until the game comes out in it’s entirety, (probably not going to play it because I have no online friends) to judge it.

Fallout 5 won’t be coming out for at least almost a decade.

1 Like

Doesn’t mean they can’t get in the practice.

What practice? They’re not making an open world RPG that focuses on strict choices and character builds. Fallout 76 is Fallout 4 Lite with a focus on multiplayer. That’s not practice on improving their lacking areas after criticism. That’s going straight in and doing exactly what people were afraid their games were turning into.

Also, a good spin-off sticks to core series values, and Zelda has the excuse of getting frequent main series releases. Fallout doesn’t have that luxury. Fallout 4 put a bad taste in my mouth, and Fallout 76 is literally the same design philosophies. It’s a pattern that started with Skyrim, and they don’t seem to care about improving or correcting themselves.

Oh I see, I didn’t know I was arguing with a New Vegas and before purist. I wouldnt have even bothered had I known. Oh well, so much for that. I personally don’t have a problem with Fallout 4 or 76, and I think Skyrim is a great game. As for Zelda, the release rate is not nearly that high. The last game before BOTW was Skyward sword, that cane out Six years before BOTW. And we’re not getting another main line Zelda game till at least 2022.

The last game before BotW was TP:HD, and the last new main series game before BotW was ALBW. In fact, we’re likely to get a new main series installment either next year or the one after.

Also, you’re talking to a Fallout fan. If I were a purist I’d be all over isometric gameplay, no, I think the jump to being an RPG with shooter mechanics was a good choice. What I hate seeing is a series being gutted of the very gameplay that makes it enjoyable. When a game gives you everything on a platter in a single playthrough, it’s an awful RPG. This is why so many have grievances with the transition from Oblivion to Skyrim, or Fo3/NV to Fo4. The very core aspects of the series have been gutted to appeal to a broader audience, instead of just making a new IP so a franchise doesn’t have to become a shell of what it was and lose its identity.

After all, weren’t people upset with Skyward Sword going too far away from the exploration and adventuring aspects of Zelda? That’s why they went back, looked at the core aspects of the very first game, and then made BotW. There has never been a Zelda game more true to the initial concept.

I’m a little busy, so ill just say this now. People don’t consider the 2D games main series, as they are more of a footnote now, and TW:HD was a remake, like Skyrim Special edition,so that doesnt count to the main series.

You’re the first person I’ve heard NOT consider the 2D games main series (which they are). On the subject of remakes and remasters, the point was that those are also main series entries that are being re-released during the off-seasons between 3D titles, and since most people go out and buy those to tide them over, they count.

Or are you going to say that SSE didn’t help to ease a bit of the wait for TES 6? This does get me on another tangent though: Bethesda’s unwillingness to do remakes and remaster despite having the resources to do it now.