This games main quest is shorter than those or at least I remember those games being longer. The this games main quest felt incredibly short to me.
Ugh, I really can't stand Kotaku. There's like TWO good legit journalists on the site... Patty is not one of them. I've said time and time again that Fallout 4 was Fallout 3 only improved. Not on EVERYTHING.. but on most.
No it's not Fallout or Fallout 2. Neither was 3 or New Vegas.. Those games are dead and gone. Time to move on.
I'm kind of in-between. It's obvious that Besthesda took the series in a very different direction than what Interplay had done with the franchise, so I think the comparison is, on one level, hard to make. But on another level, if they really wanted to distance themselves from the past games to the point where they didn't want any comparison, they probably shouldn't have called Fallout 3 by its name and renamed it something else entirely or simply "Fallout."

I personally would have been more receptive of their take on the series had it been a full reboot, but they were adamant that their game was going to be a legitimate sequel to Fallout 2 during the development which it isn't.
There's also a common misconception about the old timers that our problem is solely based on the new games not being turn based and isometric, that is not and never has been the problem. Interplay's Fallout 3 was going to have a 3D camera and turned based combat was going to be optional.
Our issues are more about respecting the source material and embracing the open ended style of storytelling and character building that made the first two games great. Despite being huge open world games, they're narratively linear.
It is a reboot though. So was Fallout 2, to Fallout 1, in essence. You act as if there is some huge degree of continuity between 1 and 2. Aside from the player characters being related, its not as if there was this tight, running storyline that Bethesda abandoned or anything like that. A couple characters here and there, but nothing really connecting them. Fallout 3 is the same. It is set in a different place, but so what? Is your problem that it isn't in California? That would get awfully dull if they just kept going back there.
Yes, Bethesda changed the gameplay. So what? Fallout's gameplay needed updated. Open world RPG suits it incredibly well.
I honestly don't see what your gripe is. You just seem determined to dislike the games.
It is a reboot though. So was Fallout 2, to Fallout 1, in essence. You act as if there is some huge degree of continuity between 1 and 2. Aside from the player characters being related, its not as if there was this tight, running storyline that Bethesda abandoned or anything like that. A couple characters here and there, but nothing really connecting them. Fallout 3 is the same. It is set in a different place, but so what? Is your problem that it isn't in California? That would get awfully dull if they just kept going back there.
Yes, Bethesda changed the gameplay. So what? Fallout's gameplay needed updated. Open world RPG suits it incredibly well.
I honestly don't see what your gripe is. You just seem determined to dislike the games.
Compare New Vegas in which it was a surprise if missions only had one resolution, and even more than that there were multiple branching ways to reach final decisions.
Just look at the different between the first two main missions of the games. In Fallout 4 you go to Concord, and are tasked with clearing out the Raiders. You have no choice to side with the Raiders, you have no choice in how you go about clearing them up, and ultimately the game railroads you into saving the Minutemen and sending them to Sanctuary.
In New Vegas you are tasked with resolving the Goodsprings fight. You can side with Goodsprings OR the Powder Gangers. From there, there are multiple ways to reach these goals. You can kill Joe Cobb early in the bar, thus making the conclusion easier, or you can actually go over to where they are waiting to invade and kill them all by yourself. You can rally the town in your defence by accomplishing various checks, or you can let all six of them invade and tackle them by yourself.
This then has an effect on the wider world - Goodsprings now loves you, and the Powder Gangers hate you - which then means later on you can't help them with their quests. But siding with the Powder Gangers gives you the option to later betray them to the NCR or defeat them when they attack. Multiple branching options that gives you a way to play the game differently, and allow you to roleplay effectively. But even more than that, it feels like the world is actually affected by your actions.
Not quite, as long as the games bare the Fallout name, they will ALWAYS be compared to the originals. You are in fact incorrect, New Vegas' quest design is very much akin to what can be found in the original games.
Well, I guess I prefer the new direction by an incredible margin then. NV was one of the most disappointed games I've played since,,,, Well KOTOR 2, so I guess I don't care for Obsidian's style.
Well, I guess I prefer the new direction by an incredible margin then. NV was one of the most disappointed games I've played since,,,, Well KOTOR 2, so I guess I don't care for Obsidian's style.

Hmm.. I'm not sure what it is either.![]()
http://kotaku.com/fallout-4-is-not-the-fallout-fans-fell-in-love-with-1745651992
Kotaku actually hits the nail on the head.
I don't know what it is, but I'm really struggling to get into this. Not sure exactly what it is, can't put my finger on it, just feel really bored. Not done a whole lot, though, maybe it'll click once I go on a little more.
Outside of being a beacon of dishonest journalism, Kotaku isn't good at anything, so I highly doubt they've hit anything with that article.
You should probably actually read the article.