Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout 4' started by Deleted member 93956, Mar 26, 2016.
I've been watching his stuff for a while, love his videos because he puts insane effort into not only thinking up fun runs, but also explaining the game's world and systems as he does them. To be fair, his no guns FO4 run has been hugely fun... but that's largely because of Jon himself more than the game. I also referenced his videos in my Fallout 3 retrospective series (basically pointing out how well made New Vegas is because it allows for no kill, kill everything, and everything in between).
Saying that this is why Fallout 4 isn't a good Fallout is like saying that Kim Jong Un's hair is why he is a bad guy. I mean yea both of these are shit but they're not even scratching the surface of suck.
I know, i wanted to expand more on my argument but i accidentaly created the post with only the title so i rushed the thing for not getting banned
Don't let it happen again or I'll ban you myself.
Yep, the primary problem with builds is the level-locked perks. It's impossible to specialise at all in the early game. Not that specialising in anything beyond shooting things in the head makes a difference, but still.
I think this is mostly a function of Fallout 4 making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions about the player character, almost constantly in a way that the other games really didn't. The game assumes you're a murderhobo, so there's really no other play style permitted. Ironically this is the opposite of its narrative assumptions, that you are consumed by the quest to find your missing child, but that's at least countered by the hundred hours of faffing about people are going to do.
No offence, but "Why Fallout 4 is not a good Fallout" on NMA reads like "Why Earth is not flat" in the Nature magazine.
Sadly with all this "flat earth theory" stuff going around you'll probably see that soon.
^ I just can't comprehend how any human being could be retarded enough to believe the Earth could be flat in this day of age. These "Flat Earth Theorists" must be joking...right...?
Well, a "why the earth is not flat" in a popular science magazine would be a good way to explain the difference between the difference between locally euclidean and actually flat. You could teach people about neighborhoods and tangent spaces!
I know, i didn't know what title to use , but teh important part it is the "Argument:" bit
Yep. Thing is - Nature is not popular science magazine. It's "hardcore" science magazine
Are you kidding? It's so hardcore!
They made a playtrought just for that? Really? Anyone who has already played fallout 3 will notice why fallout 4 is not a good fallout. This is just common sense. And even there, fallout 3 is a piece of shit not worth to be called a fallout himself.
It was a noble effort.