I was genuinely surprised playing it to find it was actually good. And that most of the loudest complaints just weren’t true.

I really enjoy Fallout 4. It’s got problems but I think Bethesda did a good job taking the honestly kinda bad Fallout 3 and turning it into a far better Bethesda open world.

Fallout 3 is too tied to the Fallout IP in ways that are detrimental. They keep a lot of the Fallout style RPG elements but… Do so in a way that is really bad as a fallout rpg and doesn’t make for an interesting Bethesda open world. So it ends up being kinda just bad.

Fallout 4 takes the game in its own direction and really improves on the gameplay itself. Exploring, looting, crafting, and building, all work really well together and make a just really fun game to play around in.

Most of its flaws come from once again, being too tied to the fallout IP. Significantly less so than 3 though. Also I don’t mean that if they just renamed it, it’d be better. If it wasn’t a fallout game, and wasn’t trying to keep a lot of the design and baggage that series has, it probably could’ve been far better.

New vegas is a better mesh of classic fallout CRPG with the Bethesda style. Fallout 4 is a really damn good open world sandbox.

It’s far from my favorite game, but I really really enjoyed the new saint’s row. My only real issue with it was it was so buggy that when my SO and I played together, every session had at least two points where it either crashed outright, or broke in such a way we had to both relaunch the game.

And this is coming from someone who loves saints row 2.

I say this after buying various straightforward remakes, but I think switching things up gives it more justification for existing. The original still exists. Why not use it as a base and change things up?

After 3 and 4 I don’t want to see them attempt another one.