🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 08:14:02 -0800 (PST), Justisaur
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 4:55:01 PM UTC-8, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:05:46 -0000, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
>> <no-spam@never.spam> wrote:
>> 
>> ><<<"..The question, at times, might be how far does the player really WANT
>> >to be immersed in such a grim setting... heh.  I think that may in
>> >part be part of this franchise's biggest liabilities, portraying a
>> >post apocalyptic wasteland a little TOO convincingly.  I like gritty
>> >environments up to a point, but the FO series doles out more of it
>> >than most games...">>>
>> >
>> >Yep that got me & its the main reason I've got around 60% through Fallout 3
>> >& not played it more for a year+
>> 
>> The recipe they have -- the overall size/vastness of the world,
>> combined with such a gloomy setting starts to work against them.  This
>> was one reason I think I thought FO:NV was best of the series -- if
>> you must spend time in a wasteland, then a wasted-away Las Vegas is
>> possibly the best place to be (I was just disappointed that they
>> didn't do a bit more with Vegas itself to make the environment more
>> interesting).
>> 
>> In a huge open world, "huge" becomes a liablity if the world is
>> fundamentally an unpleasant place to be.
>
>I actually like that about FO3, besides I'm sure the beautification mods will be along in record time (I didn't care for the beautification that much, other than the people, as I'll agree Bethesda's faces are really bad.)
>
>I'm still thinking of getting it as I've got a few days on Thanksgiving week to blow, and nothing besides Fallout Shelter's been grabbing me.  I'm not sure my rig is up to it though, as I've only got a GT270 and 4gb of ram.  It's way past time to upgrade, but money just seems to be getting tighter and tighter.
>
>I suppose I could get Mad Max as that's got far better reviews, but I still haven't seen the new movie, which I'd like to do before I get into the game.  I wonder if it's on demand yet?
>
>I would guess the deciding factor would be, does FO4 feel more like FO3 or NV?  I really didn't like NV, but did FO3 (after a few mods were out at least, which then speaks to waiting again).  
>
>- Justisaur

To me, FO4 feels more like FO3 than FO:NV but with better visuals.  In
a way that's not good because I found the quests in NV early on very
fun, and FO4 doesn't seem pull me in quite as well.  I liked "the idea
of Vegas" more than actually getting there, if that makes sense, in
FO:NV...  the way the first 10 hours or so of the game made you work
for the right to see the town at all.  The town itself wasn't all that
great but I enjoyed the journey getting there.

However I'm running on a i7-5930 with dual gtx980 cards (I don't think
the game is utilizing SLI much if at all) an 16 gigs of RAM.  Honestly
if I were you I would wait until you can upgrade your rig.  It runs
without a hitch for me but they say its a very resource intensive
game.  The performance difference is massive between a i7-5xxx
processor and a i7-4xxx running at the same clock speed, and folks
with i5 and i3 processors are saying don't even bother.  Based on what
you said I think you'd have regrets if you drop $60 on it to play it
on your current rig.  

If you liked FO3, then definitely save it for a discount purchase in
the future once you get a beefier PC.