Support NeoGAF

[Thorgal]

I think the major complaint there is that the setup in previous Fallout games was a little more open. You had a goal and a vague back story, but never something so life defining as "You're married in a heterosexual relationship and you have a child you care about, if you're male you were a soldier and if you're female you were a lawyer.". Previously it was just a case of "You grew up in a vault/small village/your dad is Liam Neeson, go"

As much as I loved Fallout 4, it definitely breaks your own sense of immersion if you're the type to roleplay your own characrer. It hamstrings what you can/can't invent as parts of your own backstory, and while you can ignore it for the vast majority of the game - every time you hit a main story quest your character has a whiplash moment of character regression where they suddenly turn into Story Main Character and react totally differently to everything they've seen/done up till that point.

The narrative flow of you, the protagonist, completely breaks down every time a main story quest starts and it only gets worse the longer you wait to do it. Its like they designed the main story to be shotgunned immediately upon leaving the vault under the assumption that everyone would mainline that part of the game for 5-6 hours to watch their character progress as the Man/Woman Out of Time, and then go back to the open world afterwards where they're nonchallant and well adjusted to their surroundings, but obviously very few people play the game that way so instead you end up with a character arc that just kind of is totally scattershot.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Prismo]

I really enjoyed his spiel on the clusterfuck that is the Institutes raison d'etre. I was really looking forward to meeting them and seeing whether they could win me over, I was astounded how poorly written they are.

 

[boneyjangles]

I've bought every single fallout game on release, and never played any of them for more than a few hours.

Maybe Fallout 4 will be different!

 

[Avari]

Same value one might get out of reading a book analyzing a movie's themes or whatnot, when they could just get the same info watching a ten minute Youtube video

Also, he's not completely negative

But either way, everything has flaws, even stuff you enjoy. Being able to enjoy something while also being able to critique it and discuss the good and bad of something you like is a good thing, especially if it's a medium or hobby where you're partake in for more than just causal enjoyment.

So why would you want to watch criticism of something you enjoy? To gain a more well-rounded perspective on that thing, to perhaps learn more about it in ways that you hadn't considered, to take part in discussion about the thing you enjoy and provide counter-point and arguments for critiques you disagree with, and so on

I absolutely agree on the point of criticism - which is why I have read and watched a good number of reviews. While I enjoyed the game I've certainly never pretended the game doesn't have it's flaws - the illusion of choice in the dialogue system is the biggest for me.

The issue is this review is significantly longer, by far, then the 'standard' review for such media. I would have to set aside an entire evening to watch it. I'm prepared to dedicate the time when provided with a solid reason. The Red Letter Media reviews of the prequels are also far longer then the 'standard' review for such media. However, when I chose to watch them they were nearly unanimously recommended as raising good points, while being very approachable and humorous. This particular piece definitely doesn't seem to have the same acclaim. It seems the presentation and tone leave a lot to be desired, and there's significant criticism for repetitiveness.

I guess the conversation I was more interested in is a an analysis of both the content of the review, and of the review itself. Even if good points are raised to what extent do you lose audience/persuasiveness when your review is so lengthy compared to the 'norm'. That said if no one is interested in this conversation I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Van Bur3n]

Finally watched the whole thing. He gets quite passionate, to say the least, towards the end.

But overall I find his criticisms solid and similar to a lot of mine. Only issue I had was with what he had to say about the DLC throughout the Bethesda games. He got a lot of information incorrect, particularly about the pricing which makes some of his arguments iffy, and I highly disagree about his thoughts on Fallout 3's DLC, which I consider ranges from mediocre to garbage.

 

[RichiRamjag]

I dug it. Yeah, he is a bit of a chode at first, but he makes some excellent points and I agree with almost all of them. Bethesda can build a nice world, but they are trash at making me feel engaged with it. Their storytelling isn't my cup of tea either. I really would like to see obsidian back on a fallout title.

 

[Effect]

I think the major complaint there is that the setup in previous Fallout games was a little more open. You had a goal and a vague back story, but never something so life defining as "You're married in a heterosexual relationship and you have a child you care about, if you're male you were a soldier and if you're female you were a lawyer.". Previously it was just a case of "You grew up in a vault/small village/your dad is Liam Neeson, go"

As much as I loved Fallout 4, it definitely breaks your own sense of immersion if you're the type to roleplay your own characrer. It hamstrings what you can/can't invent as parts of your own backstory, and while you can ignore it for the vast majority of the game - every time you hit a main story quest your character has a whiplash moment of character regression where they suddenly turn into Story Main Character and react totally differently to everything they've seen/done up till that point.

The narrative flow of you, the protagonist, completely breaks down every time a main story quest starts and it only gets worse the longer you wait to do it. Its like they designed the main story to be shotgunned immediately upon leaving the vault under the assumption that everyone would mainline that part of the game for 5-6 hours to watch their character progress as the Man/Woman Out of Time, and then go back to the open world afterwards where they're nonchallant and well adjusted to their surroundings, but obviously very few people play the game that way so instead you end up with a character arc that just kind of is totally scattershot.

That is exactly how the the story is designed. It's a straight linear story that really should be followed right away and then when you're done then branch out. Actually maybe not even when you're done but when you reach

Spoiler

the Institute.

After that point all sense of urgency the story was trying to provide, and really is only there if you go from main story mission to main story mission, disappears. Then interacting with the world at that point and how your character can responds makes sense.

If they really wanted this story to land they should have locked you out of exploring the world until that point and then opened it up. People would have hated that but that's how experience seems to be designed.