Fallout 4 - Codex Review

[TheSHEEEP]

I am one of those people who owns FO1, FO2, FO3, New Vagas and FO4 but not played any of them! I don't know why I do this to myself :lol:

The theory was that I plan to play them in order but I doubt that will ever happen unless I divorce my wife and put the the kid for adoption

Don't do it, you'd be twice broken then. One time from the family side, the other time for witnessing how a great concept developed over time.

 

[Archangel]

But isn't that a case of "Yeah, it sucks but I still enjoy it", then? There are lots of cases of games that - when looked at objectively - suck in varying degrees, yet I enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that - everyone has guilty pleasures
In any of those cases, there is just "something" about the game that works for me.
However, I'd never claim them to be good games.

I agree. Personally while everyone bashed on Storm of Zehir and while it lacked a lot but I enjoyed it a lot.
But like Fo4, it was not a great RPG, and not even a great game.

 

[Paul]

That was one of the best reviews ever written for anything. Incredibly detailed, accurate, documented..proper analysis the likes of which I WISH mainstream media would bother doing.

I spent almost two hours reading it at work (interrupted by work on and off) and it was totally worth it.

 

[joxer]

But isn't that a case of "Yeah, it sucks but I still enjoy it", then? There are lots of cases of games that - when looked at objectively - suck in varying degrees, yet I enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that - everyone has guilty pleasures
In any of those cases, there is just "something" about the game that works for me.
However, I'd never claim them to be good games.

No it's not a guilty pleasure case.

An example of a bad game that's guilty pleasure to me is Sims 4.
Somehow I don't think rpgcodex will make a review on that one though. But if they did and said it's a bad game, I'd say that I agree. Yet I poured hundreds of hours into it.

 

[crpgnut]

TL;DR

I'll still agree with the idea that Fallout 4 was the least of the Fallouts. It was too much of "been there, done that" from Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Settlement building isn't rpg and the weapon and armor modifications were overboard. To me, Bethesda created these as a smoke and mirrors way of hiding that their ideas of post-apoc are very stale.
I still dumped a ton of hours into the game, but I have no desire to go back to it anytime soon.

 

[RPGFool]

Truly brilliant. "13 Shocking Facts… " that turn out to be "13 Reviewer Opinions… ."
Not going to waste time and energy reading flawed musings devoid of the ability to distinguish fact from opinion.

But there are a lot of words there… and plenty of pictures too… I'll give "Bubbles" (the reviewer) that.

__

 

[duerer]

…also on a seemingly unrelated note:

To me, FO4 seems to be based on the design id Soft (another Beth studio, mind you) envisioned for Rage:
a gritty, semi-open world shooter with minor RPG elements thrown in for variety (character classes/attributes, customizable weapons, talkable NPCs, item shops, side missions, etc).

I immensely enjoyed Rage for what it is - a shooter first and foremost.
Now, the problem is, FO4 so wants to be an RPG first - and here is where the Rage template falls apart.
It was never designed to be a full-blown RPG.

 

[Drithius]

With Fallout 4, Bethesda have finally realized that no AAA RPG can be properly marketed unless it has “cinematic dialogues”. Thus, the player character is now Fully Voiced™, and the dialogue options are chosen from a dialogue wheel. As usual for the genre, you have to chose an option based on a short, two to three word summary that usually completely misrepresents what the character will actually say. In a game where dialogue choices actually mattered, this would be a significant problem - what if your character ended up saying something that you never intended to say? The wrong word, spoken at the wrong time, might have devastating consequences. Thankfully, this is a Bethesda game, and what you say usually doesn't have any meaningful consequences at all.

Lol, indeed. Good review. I mentioned to a friend a couple days back how the only well-done part of FO4 for me was the vertical level design. Everything else is forgettable, monotonous, and generic. After a while, it becomes a sheer test of endurance (as Bubbles put it) to finish the main quest line and get the hell out of Dodge.

And the following is probably the most important complaint of Bethesda's role in the Fallout franchise: they aren't developing the setting whatsoever - they're turning their hiking simulator into just a series of nonsensical locations with no connection to one another. Fallout 3 was similarly bereft of game design.

And that's where I see the fundamental problem with Bethesda's handling of the Fallout setting; they don't seem to have any real interest in clearly defining and developing their world. Combine the kidnapping plot, the synthetic conspiracy, the faction warfare, the alien menace, the eldritch horrors from beyond the veil, the various serial killers, the zany robots, the office romances, the cults, the flying sailing vessels, the kid that spends 210 years in a fridge, as well as all the other bullocks, and you're left with a totally incoherent, fundamentally meaningless unholy mess. Nothing in this setting holds up to the slightest bit of scrutiny; none of the characters, none of the factions, none of the basic elements of world design seem to have any careful thought put into them.

 

[Archangel]

Truly brilliant. "13 Shocking Facts… " that turn out to be "13 Reviewer Opinions… ."
Not going to waste time and energy reading flawed musings devoid of the ability to distinguish fact from opinion.

But there are a lot of words there… and plenty of pictures too… I'll give "Bubbles" (the reviewer) that.

__

RPGFool
Fool

 

[forgottenlor]

But isn't that a case of "Yeah, it sucks but I still enjoy it", then? There are lots of cases of games that - when looked at objectively - suck in varying degrees, yet I enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that - everyone has guilty pleasures
In any of those cases, there is just "something" about the game that works for me.
However, I'd never claim them to be good games.

I'm sorry, but I think this is a fallacy. If you enjoy a game then its doing a lot of good things. Conversely if you say "wow this game does lots of new and great things" and its not fun, than that game is doing something majorly wrong. Video games are about entertainment. Any game that is entertaining is doing something majorly right, even if you can't put your finger on it. It's like saying donuts don't taste good, because they aren't healthy.

 

[RPGFool]

RPGFool
Fool

Name-calling a la elementary school.

Please just go out and play with Bubbles.

__

 

[Archangel]

Name-calling a la elementary school.

Please just go out and play with Bubbles.

__

I didn't name call anyone. I just pasted your nick. I didn't give you that nick

 

[RPGFool]

I didn't name call anyone. I just pasted your nick. I didn't give you that nick

What brilliant logic! You're growing up so fast!

Bubbles is calling. Please go out and play now.

__

 

[luj1]

Guy is right and we all know its true

 

[duerer]

Hey, every RPG forum needs a troll.
Ad&d nuts surely must know how to deal with these folks

 

[TheSHEEEP]

I'm sorry, but I think this is a fallacy. If you enjoy a game then its doing a lot of good things. Conversely if you say "wow this game does lots of new and great things" and its not fun, than that game is doing something majorly wrong. Video games are about entertainment. Any game that is entertaining is doing something majorly right, even if you can't put your finger on it.

The problem with your statement is that both "fun" and "entertaining" are 100% subjective. Sure, they always pop up in reviews, as it is hard for any writer to draw the line there, but they are not criteria that an objective review should use too much for a rating. They are useless in stating if a game is good or bad, they just tell if you liked it or not.

Is the Codex review fully neutral? Surely not, but surprisingly much at the same time. It is so easy to bash Fallout 4 for so many things, but Bubbles actually took the time to explain. Commendable, seeing how much he suffered through it lol
Almost nothing in there can just be put away as opinion, even if some foolish fanboys would like to think so.

Graphics can be analyzed objectively (by not judging the art direction itself - that would be opinion - but by how well it was achieved).
Same is true for sound, same is true for stability, performance, UI, etc.
And yes, same is true for game design - which is without a doubt the most important part. I'd include storytelling here as well. What did the designer(s) set out to do? How well did they achieve it?

In the case of Fallout 4, they failed at pretty much everything they set out to do, game design wise. As the review showed very well.

Does that mean the game is unenjoyable? For some yes, for some no.
It doesn't matter in qualifying the game as good or bad. And it shouldn't, or we would soon say games like Angry Birds or CC Saga are the best games of all because of how many people enjoy them.

All of that doesn't mean that opinions should be banned from being stated on sites, of course. It would just be nice if opinions were stated as such more often, and left out of actual reviews more often…

 

[Paul]

Truly brilliant. "13 Shocking Facts… " that turn out to be "13 Reviewer Opinions… ."
Not going to waste time and energy reading flawed musings devoid of the ability to distinguish fact from opinion.

But there are a lot of words there… and plenty of pictures too… I'll give "Bubbles" (the reviewer) that.

__

Stop pretending this is the first time you have seen someone use sarcasm.

 

[JDR13]

At best, the review is serviceable. Some parts read like a lame smear campaign.
All one needs to do is scroll down to the bottom and read the final hate-filled paragraph. To say that the review wasn't neutral is a huge understatement, but it's about what I'd expect from the Codex.

 

[azarhal]

Am I weird if that review actually makes me want to try Fallout 4, which I didn't care about, just to collect clothing and wear all sort of weird stuff?

Oh and explore all those dungeons with posing skeletons and teddy bears.

 

[forgottenlor]

The problem with your statement is that both "fun" and "entertaining" are 100% subjective. Sure, they always pop up in reviews, as it is hard for any writer to draw the line there, but they are not criteria that an objective review should use too much for a rating. They are useless in stating if a game is good or bad, they just tell if you liked it or not.

Is the Codex review fully neutral? Surely not, but surprisingly much at the same time. It is so easy to bash Fallout 4 for so many things, but Bubbles actually took the time to explain. Commendable, seeing how much he suffered through it lol
Almost nothing in there can just be put away as opinion, even if some foolish fanboys would like to think so.

Graphics can be analyzed objectively (by not judging the art direction itself - that would be opinion - but by how well it was achieved).
Same is true for sound, same is true for stability, performance, UI, etc.
And yes, same is true for game design - which is without a doubt the most important part. I'd include storytelling here as well. What did the designer(s) set out to do? How well did they achieve it?

In the case of Fallout 4, they failed at pretty much everything they set out to do, game design wise. As the review showed very well.

Does that mean the game is unenjoyable? For some yes, for some no.
It doesn't matter in qualifying the game as good or bad. And it shouldn't, or we would soon say games like Angry Birds or CC Saga are the best games of all because of how many people enjoy them.

All of that doesn't mean that opinions should be banned from being stated on sites, of course. It would just be nice if opinions were stated as such more often, and left out of actual reviews more often…

I disagree with you. A game can have great graphics, good writing, and no bugs, and can be a huge flop that no one enjoys. Are these things that should be taken into consideration in a review: I'd most definately say yes. However, in my opinion they aren't what makes a game good or bad.

I'm going to posit something, that I'm sure you disagree with: Every review is an opinion, and every person will have an opinion of a game and what they find postive or negative. I'll also say that something like Minesweeper or Hearts are great games despite their simplicity. You might not like them because they are simple and addictive. That's okay. A good review tells you about all of a game's features so you can decide for yourself if you like it. A poor review ignores these things. I think the codex review is good for this reason, and yet not everyone will agree that this will lead to the game being bad.

I haven't played Fallout 4 yet, and so I can't judge it. One thing that all reviews have told me is how unimportant npcs and conversation is, and I find that a negative thing, for example. That doesn't ruin a game FOR ME, per say. Diablo 2 was filled with inane dialogue, and I liked it.

I don't believe that games can be objectively good or bad for everyone. But then again, I don't believe much in absolute objectivity at all, though I strive towards it. My opinion flows through everything I write.

There are movies that win Oscars that I find painful to watch. But they are good right? Because of their acting? Or their cinematography? Or their dialogue? I personally don't want to see most of them because they aren't entertaining, and apparently I'm not alone.

Some characteristics of any given media is a game breaker for certain people. Like for me hopelessly depressing movies are. For other people they play no role whatsoever.