General Gaming Fallout 4 vs Outer Worlds: something that has been buggin me

[Paperclyp]

Hey. 

 

So, Fallout 4 is a better game than outer worlds. It’s ok if you disagree, it’s ok to be wrong about stuff. 

 

I want to hedge a little bit here by saying SOME of Fallout 4’s mediocre reception was guided by the fact that it ran poorly on consoles, and it had the typical Bethesda jank, and I think people were sort of tired of that shit at that time in the generation. 

 

But Outer Worlds is RANK with problems at the core of its very design. It has no weapon depth or variety. The combat is soulless. They included stuff that they feel these games should have with little thought on how to implement them in interesting ways (lock picking, stealth). I could go on. Hell, taken as a whole, I think Fallout is a way better looking game as well. There are more interesting things to do, the combat is more interesting, the inventory management is more interesting, and there are entire side parts of the game that you can lose hours to if it strikes your fancy. 

 

I believe part of OW’s rosy reception is that there hasn’t been one of these in a while, so people were more willing to play one. I also think the game was a darling of the media (at least initially), because it is a shorter game and this time of year they’re trying to play a ton of shit before they do their end of year stuff. Tellingly, many who gushed about it at first are slowly pushing back a bit not, partly because I think the smarter critics have gotten their hands on it and pointed out the game’s flaws, and partly because the game just kinda doesn’t get a whole lot better the more you play. 

 

But in a vacuum where time isn’t a factor and the games were released side by side, I am willing to bet that 75 percent of people or more are going to pick Fallout in a runaway. 

 

That’s all. I had to get it out there. 

[Keyser_Soze]

Hey.

 

Yeah but you said this all in the Outer Worlds thread.

[JPDunks4]

Well one was a huge release from a AAA Publisher, one was a smaller release small budget game. 

 

One game comes with big expectations, one comes with expectations of a smaller budget game.

 

One is coming on the heels of Fallout 76, where basically anything that is not Fallout 76 in the same genre, sticking to a single player focused story as opposed to what Fallout 76 tried, is going to be much better received.

 

I haven't played Outer Worlds yet.  I did play Fallout 4, and hell, I bought Fallout 76.  I personally thought Fallout 4 was a letdown.  I really loved Fallout 3 and it's DLCs.  I played Fallout 4 and was left pretty let down.  The world didn't feel at all interesting to me.  Being a native of the Boston area, it never felt Boston to me at all.  I know Boston isn't as unique as a DC might be, but it just never felt like an interesting map or area to explore.  The story I felt was never enough to really drive me as well.  I liked it enough to play through all of it, but just never felt it was as good as Fallout 3.  Fallout 76 I enjoyed for what it was, but ultimately had too many issues to really ignore.  

 

I look forward to trying Outer Worlds as well.  But I think its pretty easy to see why one was so well received vs the other.  I don't even think it has much to do with the games themselves, so much as a Bethesda AAA powerhouse vs Obsidian who was largely independent until recently.  Most of what I've read about Outer Worlds was, it was a good game that you can clearly feel was a low budget project, and many look forward to see what they do with a proper budget.

 

 

[TheLeon]

 Only one of them launched on Game Pass. 

[Biggie]

2 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

Hey. 

 

So, Fallout 4 is a better game than outer worlds. It’s ok if you disagree, it’s ok to be wrong about stuff. 

 

I want to hedge a little bit here by saying SOME of Fallout 4’s mediocre reception was guided by the fact that it ran poorly on consoles, and it had the typical Bethesda jank, and I think people were sort of tired of that shit at that time in the generation. 

 

But Outer Worlds is RANK with problems at the core of its very design. It has no weapon depth or variety. The combat is soulless. They included stuff that they feel these games should have with little thought on how to implement them in interesting ways (lock picking, stealth). I could go on. Hell, taken as a whole, I think Fallout is a way better looking game as well. There are more interesting things to do, the combat is more interesting, the inventory management is more interesting, and there are entire side parts of the game that you can lose hours to if it strikes your fancy. 

 

I believe part of OW’s rosy reception is that there hasn’t been one of these in a while, so people were more willing to play one. I also think the game was a darling of the media (at least initially), because it is a shorter game and this time of year they’re trying to play a ton of shit before they do their end of year stuff. Tellingly, many who gushed about it at first are slowly pushing back a bit not, partly because I think the smarter critics have gotten their hands on it and pointed out the game’s flaws, and partly because the game just kinda doesn’t get a whole lot better the more you play. 

 

But in a vacuum where time isn’t a factor and the games were released side by side, I am willing to bet that 75 percent of people or more are going to pick Fallout in a runaway. 

 

That’s all. I had to get it out there. 

  I agree. Once you’ve moved on to the 2nd planet it hits you that there isn’t much more there. 

[Paperclyp]

1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Hey.

 

Yeah but you said this all in the Outer Worlds thread.

I felt it needed a larger audience, plus I started a new game of FO4 and it confirmed my suspicions. 

43 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

Well one was a huge release from a AAA Publisher, one was a smaller release small budget game. 

 

One game comes with big expectations, one comes with expectations of a smaller budget game.

 

One is coming on the heels of Fallout 76, where basically anything that is not Fallout 76 in the same genre, sticking to a single player focused story as opposed to what Fallout 76 tried, is going to be much better received.

 

I haven't played Outer Worlds yet.  I did play Fallout 4, and hell, I bought Fallout 76.  I personally thought Fallout 4 was a letdown.  I really loved Fallout 3 and it's DLCs.  I played Fallout 4 and was left pretty let down.  The world didn't feel at all interesting to me.  Being a native of the Boston area, it never felt Boston to me at all.  I know Boston isn't as unique as a DC might be, but it just never felt like an interesting map or area to explore.  The story I felt was never enough to really drive me as well.  I liked it enough to play through all of it, but just never felt it was as good as Fallout 3.  Fallout 76 I enjoyed for what it was, but ultimately had too many issues to really ignore.  

 

I look forward to trying Outer Worlds as well.  But I think its pretty easy to see why one was so well received vs the other.  I don't even think it has much to do with the games themselves, so much as a Bethesda AAA powerhouse vs Obsidian who was largely independent until recently.  Most of what I've read about Outer Worlds was, it was a good game that you can clearly feel was a low budget project, and many look forward to see what they do with a proper budget.

 

 

I can’t respond in detail right now, but my post is partially in direct response to hearing podcasters say they’d rather play OW over fallout outside of all that context you provided. 

[Bacon]

So, I HATED Fallout 4. I couldn't stand it. Well, after playing Outer Worlds, I have 72+ hours into Fallout 4 and I have been having a grand ol time. There are a lot of sluggish shit to get use to with FO4, which feels ever worse after playing the fast and smooth TOW, but you stop noticing after about 5 hours. FO4 is just much more interesting. There is much more shit going on in FO4 and it actually has humor and silliness. 

[Dodger]

53 minutes ago, Bacon said:

So, I HATED Fallout 4. I couldn't stand it. Well, after playing Outer Worlds, I have 72+ hours into Fallout 4 and I have been having a grand ol time. There are a lot of sluggish shit to get use to with FO4, which feels ever worse after playing the fast and smooth TOW, but you stop noticing after about 5 hours. FO4 is just much more interesting. There is much more shit going on in FO4 and it actually has humor and silliness. 

 

 

FO4 might not be the greatest in the series but it still has stuff like you letting you go to the ruins of a comic book store and letting you dress up as your childhood favorite comic. Or becoming a hero that has a radio show in the game (The Silver Shroud). The Railroad was at least somewhat interesting and I liked how you had to go find them. It also had some other wacky/creepy stuff for you to discover on your own. It was perfect, but it still had a lot more variety to it that what I played in TOW, which I've only gotten to the second planet but from everything I've heard it doesn't really get any better. 

 

The most interesting thing I've seen you can do in TOW is help a girl ask her girlcrush and then help her make the date go perfect. Which is cool, but I really dislike how from what I've seen the people fighting the evil corporations are all dicks themselves and you're really just choosing between which group of assholes to side with. 

[SimpleG]

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

Fallout 4 is a better game than outer worlds

It is but not because of what you listed

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

 

I want to hedge a little bit here by saying SOME of Fallout 4’s mediocre reception was guided by the fact that it ran poorly on consoles

Its a tiny part sure but console players will put up with some down right shit tastic running games

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

But Outer Worlds is RANK with problems at the core of its very design. It has no weapon depth or variety. The combat is soulless.

Agreed

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

hey included stuff that they feel these games should have with little thought on how to implement them in interesting ways (lock picking, stealth). I could go on. Hell, taken as a whole, I think Fallout is a way better looking game as well. 

They are on equal footing when it comes to this, lockpicking and stealth are both trashcan tier and artistic choice for the 2 is very different comparing the 2 seems like your grasping to make your point

 

4 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

There are more interesting things to do,

Both games quest lines and side quest are as passionless as it gets but FO4 has more interesting things to see, the world does a better job of feeling real and telling its own story.

4 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

the combat is more interesting, the inventory management is more interesting

 

Disagree , they both are mediocre at best. If you find the combat interesting or inventory management interesting more power to ya 

 

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

and there are entire side parts of the game that you can lose hours to if it strikes your fancy. 

This is why I find it a better game, its very easy to lose yourself in the world. I can play for days and not give a shit about the story or even move it forward and still have fun

 

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

I believe part of OW’s rosy reception is that there hasn’t been one of these in a while, so people were more willing to play one. I also think the game was a darling of the media (at least initially), because it is a shorter game and this time of year they’re trying to play a ton of shit before they do their end of year stuff. 

Or because its a return to form like FONV and similar games where stats actually move you in different path and not just a stat that allows to equip an item.

[Kal-El814]

Fallout 4's main storyline was terrible. You can side with the group who's replacing humans on the surface for no cogent reason / enslaving an obviously sentient group of robots, side with a group that's freeing robotic slaves, or a faction that thinks they're the only group who should control technology. There's interesting stuff that could have been said from any of those three perspectives but it never actually gets said in game.

 

FO4 doesn't get shit on for having Bethesda jank (even though it's there) it gets shit on for doing so little with what it brings to the table. I help Cait with her personal quest, help her overcome her addiction, and she sees that I can be altruistic. We romance. Then she dislikes anything I do to help anyone else in the game after that? As soon as I got out of the Vault I go to explore a bit and I see synths wrecking faces. I kill a shitload of them and derp around for a while before going back to start the main quest like I do in every Bethesda game. What does my character say? "Huh? Synths? What are those?" Bitch, I've been killing synths and selling synth parts for WEEKS now and the game just doesn't fucking care. How many times did I save Lucy Abernathy from Raiders after she was kidnapped and dumped in the same... fucking... dungeon...

 

So lazy, and the game is RIFE with that shit.

 

FO4 is a mile wide and a centimeter deep, it's a tremendous disappointment.

[Dodger]

19 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Fallout 4's main storyline was terrible. You can side with the group who's replacing humans on the surface for no cogent reason / enslaving an obviously sentient group of robots, side with a group that's freeing robotic slaves, or a faction that thinks they're the only group who should control technology. There's interesting stuff that could have been said from any of those three perspectives but it never actually gets said in game.

 

FO4 doesn't get shit on for having Bethesda jank (even though it's there) it gets shit on for doing so little with what it brings to the table. I help Cait with her personal quest, help her overcome her addiction, and she sees that I can be altruistic. We romance. Then she dislikes anything I do to help anyone else in the game after that? As soon as I got out of the Vault I go to explore a bit and I see synths wrecking faces. I kill a shitload of them and derp around for a while before going back to start the main quest like I do in every Bethesda game. What does my character say? "Huh? Synths? What are those?" Bitch, I've been killing synths and selling synth parts for WEEKS now and the game just doesn't fucking care. How many times did I save Lucy Abernathy from Raiders after she was kidnapped and dumped in the same... fucking... dungeon...

 

So lazy, and the game is RIFE with that shit.

 

FO4 is a mile wide and a centimeter deep, it's a tremendous disappointment.

 

 

Right, but what I've played of TOW is dick corporation are being dicks, and there is this other group that is resisting them. So you go talk to them, and they turn out to be dicks too, they just happen to be against the dick corporation while also being dicks. I never actually felt any sympathy for the people resisting the dick corporations because they were as big if not bigger dicks than the dick corporations. 

[Paperclyp]

27 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Fallout 4's main storyline was terrible. You can side with the group who's replacing humans on the surface for no cogent reason / enslaving an obviously sentient group of robots, side with a group that's freeing robotic slaves, or a faction that thinks they're the only group who should control technology. There's interesting stuff that could have been said from any of those three perspectives but it never actually gets said in game.

 

FO4 doesn't get shit on for having Bethesda jank (even though it's there) it gets shit on for doing so little with what it brings to the table. I help Cait with her personal quest, help her overcome her addiction, and she sees that I can be altruistic. We romance. Then she dislikes anything I do to help anyone else in the game after that? As soon as I got out of the Vault I go to explore a bit and I see synths wrecking faces. I kill a shitload of them and derp around for a while before going back to start the main quest like I do in every Bethesda game. What does my character say? "Huh? Synths? What are those?" Bitch, I've been killing synths and selling synth parts for WEEKS now and the game just doesn't fucking care. How many times did I save Lucy Abernathy from Raiders after she was kidnapped and dumped in the same... fucking... dungeon...

 

So lazy, and the game is RIFE with that shit.

 

FO4 is a mile wide and a centimeter deep, it's a tremendous disappointment.

Then, let me tell you, The Outer Worlds is not the game for you. 

[CitizenVectron]

Both games are mediocre, and are fun in different ways. FO4 is better if you like losing yourself for hours in side stuff and wandering around. OW is better if you like character choices that have a bit more meaning (and are more interesting). So I can see people like one or the other more, quite easily. OW obviously also has less jank.

 

BUT, both have horrible inventory management that are clearly designed for consoles, and all console games have shitty inventory management (convince me I'm wrong) compared to good PC games (designed for PC). I'd also like to point out that while it's true that FO4 has more things to do based purely on its size...it's also tedious because of this. It's true that OW has taken some of the management out of the game (lockpicking, etc), but some would actually prefer that, especially if the game were as large in scale as FO4. Digging through 86,000 small cupboards in FO4 was brutal, especially when most have cigarette packs and tin cans.

 

The entire genre needs a massive rethink. OW did a good job of pushing it forward a bit, and I hope that FO5 (if it is ever made) or another AAA takes some of the ideas and runs with them, and improves on the entire model of the genre.

[Kal-El814]

6 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Then, let me tell you, The Outer Worlds is not the game for you. 

I found The Outer Worlds to be a much more satisfying game than Fallout 4.

 

10 minutes ago, Dodger said:

Right, but what I've played of TOW is dick corporation are being dicks, and there is this other group that is resisting them. So you go talk to them, and they turn out to be dicks too, they just happen to be against the dick corporation while also being dicks. I never actually felt any sympathy for the people resisting the dick corporations because they were as big if not bigger dicks than the dick corporations. 

By the end of The Outer Worlds, "both factions" at least have a cogent reason for what they're doing. It takes longer than I'd have liked for what was "actually happening" to reveal itself, there's still not as much nuance as I'd have liked... but what The Board was ultimately attempting actually helps explain some of the other shit you see earlier in the game AND how the world is portrayed.

 

In Fallout 4, The Institute is completely oblivious to the fact that they're creating sentient robot and the entirety of what they're doing doesn't align with their goals. I honestly cannot think of a compelling reason to side with The Brotherhood of Steel in FO4 beyond, "man fuck these other factions," which is... pretty shitty.

 

I don't think either game is a masterpiece or anything, but by the end of The Outer Worlds I at least understood what was happening and why. I challenge anyone to explain what the goals of The Institute were beyond "keep doing The Institute stuff."

 

And the combat in both is, at best... passable.

[Dodger]

4 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Both games are mediocre, and are fun in different ways. FO4 is better if you like losing yourself for hours in side stuff and wandering around. OW is better if you like character choices that have a bit more meaning (and are more interesting). So I can see people like one or the other more, quite easily. OW obviously also has less jank.

 

BUT, both have horrible inventory management that are clearly designed for consoles, and all console games have shitty inventory management (convince me I'm wrong) compared to good PC games (designed for PC). I'd also like to point out that while it's true that FO4 has more things to do based purely on its size...it's also tedious because of this. It's true that OW has taken some of the management out of the game (lockpicking, etc), but some would actually prefer that, especially if the game were as large in scale as FO4. Digging through 86,000 small cupboards in FO4 was brutal, especially when most have cigarette packs and tin cans.

 

The entire genre needs a massive rethink. OW did a good job of pushing it forward a bit, and I hope that FO5 (if it is ever made) or another AAA takes some of the ideas and runs with them, and improves on the entire model of the genre.

 

 

You're still collecting a bunch of crap in TOW though, the food items you can put into your stimpak thing are literally littered everywhere, as well as the same weapons and weapon mods everywhere. 

[Dre801]

I prefer the world of Fallout 4, at the least.

[Paperclyp]

@Kal-El814 appreciate your responses. I’ll respond in detail later, I threw this thread together in a rage during a gap at work, so it’s not the most comprehensive thing I’ve ever written. 

[XxEvil AshxX]

I can't really argue one way or the other. I've been playing Fallout 4 modded to hell for so long i don't even remember what the vanilla game is like anymore.

[Kal-El814]

8 minutes ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

I can't really argue one way or the other. I've been playing Fallout 4 modded to hell for so long i don't even remember what the vanilla game is like anymore.

It’s extremely vanilla

[Chris-]

2 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

Fallout 4's main storyline was terrible. You can side with the group who's replacing humans on the surface for no cogent reason / enslaving an obviously sentient group of robots, side with a group that's freeing robotic slaves, or a faction that thinks they're the only group who should control technology. There's interesting stuff that could have been said from any of those three perspectives but it never actually gets said in game.

 

FO4 doesn't get shit on for having Bethesda jank (even though it's there) it gets shit on for doing so little with what it brings to the table. I help Cait with her personal quest, help her overcome her addiction, and she sees that I can be altruistic. We romance. Then she dislikes anything I do to help anyone else in the game after that? As soon as I got out of the Vault I go to explore a bit and I see synths wrecking faces. I kill a shitload of them and derp around for a while before going back to start the main quest like I do in every Bethesda game. What does my character say? "Huh? Synths? What are those?" Bitch, I've been killing synths and selling synth parts for WEEKS now and the game just doesn't fucking care. How many times did I save Lucy Abernathy from Raiders after she was kidnapped and dumped in the same... fucking... dungeon...

 

So lazy, and the game is RIFE with that shit.

 

FO4 is a mile wide and a centimeter deep, it's a tremendous disappointment.

 

My man, your mistake was not piping Piper. 10/10 game if you do.

[Kal-El814]

18 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

My man, your mistake was not piping Piper. 10/10 game if you do.

I ditched Cait to plow Curie. No regrets. 

[Bacon]

You can plow all three women(and the select dudes too if that's your thing) without any repercussion.

[Paperclyp]

7 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

FO4 doesn't get shit on for having Bethesda jank (even though it's there) it gets shit on for doing so little with what it brings to the table.

See it's this specifically that I take umbrage with. If that's truly the complaint, I will never understand the praise of TOW versus the collective dissatisfaction with FO4. 

 

If FO4 doesn't bring anything to the table, then TOW should be viewed as a lesser game (which it is). I can go so far to agree that TOW overall main plot is better written. But these games are so much more than the main story, and when you take all those other parts - interesting side content / characters, setting, set piece design, sound, music, inventory, combat, etc, FO4 wipes the floor in nearly every other category. 

 

If you enjoy tighter story and a shorter game, I can understand preferring TOW. But it feels like Fallout Lite. 

[ARZ]

The entire Fallout series, just didn't do it for me. But, I am older now and don't have the time to spend on games that I used to.

 

Outer Worlds scratches that itch. I like the limited world maps, and have explored every nook and cranny. On top of that, with Gamepass it didn't cost me anything extra. By the time I finish, i'll probably top out at about 40 hours, and that's exactly what i'm looking for.

[Xbob42]

I agree completely.

 

But I also think that Fallout 4 sucks ass, as does pretty much every Bethesda game. There's something to the core of those games that is addicting and draws you in, but for me personally, every single fucking element of the game outside of that core pushes me away. It wasn't so bad at first, I played plenty of Skyrim despite never finding the combat fun or the characters interesting or the story to be well told or the choices to be meaningful or the game to be visually appealing or -- you get the idea. But as time goes on, it's like each new game in this genre is a ball of pure shit with a tasty little nougat core. I don't find Outer Worlds to be very different except it's shorter, less buggy and the exploration is way shittier.

 

I would absolutely love to see this genre (as it is now, not twisted to make it lesser or less ambitious, hell, make it MORE ambitious, there's not really all that much you can actually DO in these games to begin with in terms of world interaction) taken on by a studio that doesn't have history with it. I don't know why nobody at Bethesda knows how to animate a fucking character or make combat that isn't pure dog shit, but making those elements slightly better in Outer Worlds in exchange for all the exploration and turning the game into snowglobe worlds was not the right call in my opinion.

I want to see this genre flourish and expand, not contract and turn into a lesser product that's praised just because it isn't a buggy mess.

[Paperclyp]

On 12/5/2019 at 3:28 AM, Xbob42 said:

I agree completely.

 

But I also think that Fallout 4 sucks ass, as does pretty much every Bethesda game. There's something to the core of those games that is addicting and draws you in, but for me personally, every single fucking element of the game outside of that core pushes me away. It wasn't so bad at first, I played plenty of Skyrim despite never finding the combat fun or the characters interesting or the story to be well told or the choices to be meaningful or the game to be visually appealing or -- you get the idea. But as time goes on, it's like each new game in this genre is a ball of pure shit with a tasty little nougat core. I don't find Outer Worlds to be very different except it's shorter, less buggy and the exploration is way shittier.

 

I would absolutely love to see this genre (as it is now, not twisted to make it lesser or less ambitious, hell, make it MORE ambitious, there's not really all that much you can actually DO in these games to begin with in terms of world interaction) taken on by a studio that doesn't have history with it. I don't know why nobody at Bethesda knows how to animate a fucking character or make combat that isn't pure dog shit, but making those elements slightly better in Outer Worlds in exchange for all the exploration and turning the game into snowglobe worlds was not the right call in my opinion.

I want to see this genre flourish and expand, not contract and turn into a lesser product that's praised just because it isn't a buggy mess.

I respect this. 

 

As time goes by, I align closer to your mindset as well. I think there is untapped potential in the genre.