Do you think i will like Fallout 4? What I disliked about Fallout 3 was the gray color pallet and IMO boring world. With everything being dead och rocks and sand I did not feel any need to explore the world.

Nope.

Well, they certainly added a lot of colour to large parts of the world in Fallout 4. Lots of rusted paint everywhere. Some people actually didn't like how much more colour there was, so you can't please everyone.

I think the world in Fallout 4 is more visually interesting yeah. The Far Harbor DLC is especially great and has lots of vegetation, although it's closer to the grey/green/blue color pallete.

The best thing to do is probably check out some game footage on youtube, or some trailers. Should give you a good idea of how the world in that game looks. Now whether the world feels more 'alive' in a game sense is harder question to answer.

I liked Fallout 4 more in that regard. I fully agree with you about Fallout 3's color palette and just overall visuals. Four is a bit better, though I won't say it's far improved. There's more red and blue for sure, though green not necessarily. I had a hard time wanting to explore every nook and cranny of three, which is partially why I never had, but I did everything in four. I just wish there were more interesting events and characters in places. The biggest issue with four (playing on PS4) is that the frame rate in the middle part of the map, which is basically the city of Boston, has some abysmal frame rates, and the story nearing the end doesn't satisfy nor I didn't like the choices I had to make but chose the best I could.

If you didn't like Liam Neeson being your dad, I doubt that you're going to like trying to get your son back in bombed out Boston.

Though, The Silver Shroud and Nick Valentine quest lines are pretty strong. Maybe not strong enough to occasionally play Mincraft with guns, but that's not my call.

If you play on PC there are really neat mods that make the world overgrown, Last of Us style.

@forzafan86: from personal experience I have tried to like all the modern Fallout games and much like Alex have bounced off every single time. Had similar thoughts to you about Fallout 3 but forced myself to finish that. Bought New Vegas because all the praise that THIS one is better written, less flat and robotic - barely made a dent in it before the clunkiness and lifelessness of gamebryo turned me off. I don’t really know why I bought Fallout 4 but I did and I actually put some hours into that one but eventually the same issues I always had with this franchise arose and I moved on to other games.

Granted I’m not on a No Mutants Allowed level of fanship but I did greatly enjoy the classic Fallout games and have always thought Bethesda never really understood what made them great.

F4 is a better game than F3, but still a really poor Fallout game.

The color pallet is pretty much the same in Fallout 4.

The main thing that bummed me out about Fallout 4 is that literally every mission is "go here and kill everyone." No talking your way out of things, no creative solutions, just shoot everyone.

@humanity: referring to the NMA community as "fans" is being extremely kind and generous. I spent years there before "smh" was a thing listening to them attack people who had the audacity to like Fallout 2 because apparently it was a terrible game that had ignored the spirit and aesthetic of the original.

To the original question: I thought FO4 was fantastic, despite some pretty bad bugs and hitches at launch. It actually reminded me more of the original Fallouts than the other two modern entries, and some of the side quests were a lot of fun (why does no one talk about the pirates? Am I really the only one who loved that line?). The visuals aren't depressing like they were in 3. It isn't some beautiful Utopian paradise where you'd want to vacation, but it can be as downright homey and cheerful as you'd want any post apocalyptic wasteland to be.

I would say no, since Fallout 4 also has the 'world is destroyed' thing going on.

That said, it does look significantly better so perhaps it was a combination of the grayness with poor resolution and graphical fidelity that put you off? I guess it's just easy to tell you to watch the Quick Look and decide for yourself if you like what you see it looking like. Beyond that, the gameplay is a whole lot better and it is more refined than Fallout 3, but it does abandon some things like proper dark nighttimes and such. Mods can bring all that back though.

Speaking of which, you could also just install a mod that changes the world to have a lot more grass and other green life around. Fallout Seasons comes to mind. You'll likely want to have either Autumn or Summer turned on.

Fallout 4 is a worse version of Fallout 3, which itself wasn't a great Fallout game. If you have a PC, there are a great number of mods that fix the color palate and add interesting features to Fallout 3.

Fallout: New Vegas is a bit more streamlined, has a lot more variety, and is like a traditional Fallout game. The color palate is better, but it can still be monotonous.

No you won't like it,try maybe Skyrim or oblivion,maybe some morrowind

It seems like I wont be getting this game. I could play it on PC with mods but I dont want to pay for a game I have to mod to be able to play it.

@ltcolumbo: didn’t realize those guys evolved to the point of even hating Fallout 2. I guess while some people move forward others go backwards.

I'd go New Vegas. It's the modern Fallout game that most directly addresses your complaints with 3--the Mohave feels so much more alive than either the Capital Wasteland or the Commonwealth. (And the characters/quests/writing/roleplay systems are all vastly, vastly better than either 3 or 4's.)

@forzafan86: I found the world of 4 to be worse than 3.

A big element of 4 is that you're helping out remote locations, building up structures and defenses for them. That sort of eats away at the "hand built" nature that 3 had. You end up with lots of things like, here's this farm with lots of empty space around it, or here's this old bombed out cul-de-sac that you're going to try turn into a base but actually the base building isn't very well implemented.

There's also just a lot more randomly generated quests in the game that don't feel all that great.

There's a bit more colour in it than 3 sure, but not a tonne.

The world in 4 is more visually interesting than the world of 3/NV (specially with mods), so it is entirely possible that, if the visuals was what draw you away from 3, 4 would still hold your interest. The whole "world is in ruins" is part of the setting, so I wouldn't expect much different going in, but at least the palette has more than different shades of green and brown (for the record, I didn't explore much of the mods of 3)...

That being said, I found 4 to be a worst game than 3/NV...

I loved 3 and fell right off of 4.

On the bright side, they improved the combat some, so you can take your frustrations out on some uninteresting side characters. Man... what the hell, Fallout 4? I was ready to sink so much time into you.

F4 was made for you.

Fallout 3 was good at the time. But yes, everything was incredibly drab and grey and green tinted. I didn't enjoy the game visually until mods came out to inject color into the game. Story wise, it felt like a step back from old Black Isle Fallouts, but better than Oblivion.

I found Fallout 4 to be a huge step back in terms of rpg elements, which is what I want from an RPG. The shooting is much better, but if I wanted good shooting mechanics, FO4 isn't the game I'd be playing for that. I don't want to craft junk and the junk I do craft all looks the same.

Visually, FO4 is varied, but while Fallout 3's map was nothing but grey's and browns, it had more interesting places to discover. There's no point in conversation, the dialogue choices imply branching choices, but it still ends up looking like a Targaryon family tree.

You are always the soldier, always the lawyer, and you will always be looking for your baby. The later always makes me feel like I must play FO4 in a specific way.

New Vegas has the funky shooting mechanics of FO3. While everyone complains that the Mojave feels barren, I think it's the opposite. Yes, there are swaths of sand, but each location you come across feels really thought out. Not every location is just a dungeon for shooting raiders and mutants. And once you get to New Vegas, the area feels quite different. Since you are a blank slate at the start of the game, whether you join Mr House, or the New Republic, or Caesar's Legion, you do you and it makes sense from a character perspective.

If you take a look at my Steam played list, Skyrim, FO3, New Vegas, and Oblivion are in my top 10, with Skyrim, FO3, and New Vegas each being in the 200+ hour mark. I'd like to think I enjoy this genre of game. But Fallout 4, I have -maybe- 30 hours, and most of that was spent trying to mod it into something I found enjoyable.

If Fallout was a Disney World ride, Fallout 3 would be Star Tours and Fallout 4 would be Toy Story Mania.

I just started playing it. I like it so far. I 100% F3 but fell of New Vegas.

People tend to think that a particular game should stick to its roots precisely and shouldn't change in its vision at all from sequel to sequel. I wouldn't call myself a hardcore Fallout fan, but I have dabbled in its community a little bit and have heard of the Fallout 2 hate. It's just because it didn't have the same vision as the original. It's also why people sometimes say Fallout 3 and 4 are 'good games but bad Fallout games'.

I have actually been guilty of this in the past. I called Bloodborne a good game but a bad Souls game. Now that I think about it, it is bad criticism. But I guess it does or can apply to hardcore players.

I didn't like fallout 3 at all but I loved FO4. I think because I played it mostly like a first person shooter.

@zevvion: I think the descriptor of “good game but bad Fallout game” is very accurate in the case of latter day Fallouts, but personally I wouldn’t even say they’re particularly great games on their own either. Unlike Skyrim which I find boring but technically a proficient game, the Fallout entries all felt like they were haphazardly cobbled together and held by tape and bubblegum. Fallot 4 especially seemed like instead of refining what they already built they took on the “everything and the kitchen sink” approach. I can only imagine they had a big board and they’d randomly write new mechanics on it and say like OK sure why not. Rage is not a particularly great game but after having played it I thought “wow THIS actually feels a lot like what I would want a modern Fallout game to be.” It was post apocalyptic but not drab and boring (at least aesthetically).

Is it good criticism? Ehh I dunno. It’s a decent observation that will help some more than others. The Fallout games already get away with murder in terms of pure quality is concerned so I think any actual criticism at this stage is a wasted effort.

@humanity: Maybe. I just know some people who hadn't played a Fallout game before and also knew some youngsters who couldn't have played one before. To all of them, Fallout 4 was a great game. They don't even have the 'but a bad Fallout game' perspective to go with it, so I don't know if there is any point mentioning such criticism to anyone other than Fallout fanatics.

Did anyone ever notice the large reptilian creatures from Oblivion looked a lot like deathclaws? They also have the same hugging claw attack I think.

Fallout 4 succeeds in many areas where F3 didn’t. It’s a semi-competent shooter, it looks more colorful and the item crafting is better. Sadly, a lot of the content is not particularly engaging. The main quest is not very strong and there isn’t much else of interest unless you have the dlc. I hope the focus on building settlements doesn’t carry over in future Fallout games, as it was a lot of tideous busywork.

As for people recommending New Vegas, it’s practically the same as 3, but with a (much) better main quest.

Didn't care for 3 that much and didn't like 4 at all, but technically i have more hours in 4 than i do 3. Another thing is i love Oblivion and Skyrim, so take that as you will.

I found Fallout 4 to be a technically better Fallout 3. Except after a double effort, I really took to Fallout 3, but did not finish Fallout 4. I refused to join a faction, being divided between 2 of them .

Most likely,( but who can say), you will find Fallout 4 too Fallout 3. Or something might grab you. It did me on two tries, and perhaps it was just the experience overall, that now for me has gotten a little old. I still intend to go back sometime and finish the game, and I understand at least one of the DLC is worth it.

Edit; meant to mention I did not finish New Vegas either. Same thing , 3/4ths way through, just too drab, and lost interest in the story-line.

It's been a couple of years now so people have to think back, and it's almost a decade since 3, but 4 had a far more lively color palette. See these examples of scrapyard vs scrapyard and outskirts town vs outskirts town.

Fallout 3 is a lot of grey, green and brown. Playing Fallout 4 you can tell there was a conscious effort in the art direction to add more color to the world. The change to a less irradiated setting is part of that.

FO3 > FO4
So chances are you won't like it very much, other than perhaps the improved controls that we'd expect from games these days.

It's almost the same game. You still have to load between going into houses, the conversations play out largely in a similar manner, and the gunplay is still unsatisfying, albeit slightly more responsive. The story is as sucky as it was in F3.

So, no.

I also agree that FO3 > FO4 so you prolly wont like it :/