Jump to content

Talk:Fallout 4/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Developer

I have removed the developer as Bethesda Game Studios. Bethesda Softworks has the publishing rights, but they own multiple studios and have assigned the Fallout series to more than just one. For example, Fallout: New Vegas was developed by Obsidian Entertainment.HypedBeaver13 (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge & redirect per second AfD

I have redirected this page to Fallout (series) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallout 4 (2nd nomination). Since this is the second time that this page has been redirected per an AfD in less than 3 months, I suggest to interested editors to work on the Fallout 4 section at the merged article, until such time as this game is either reviewed by a major gaming publication, or actually released, or both. Otherwise it looks like you'll just be inviting more deletion discussions. Ivanvector (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The years are wrong.

Someone decided to change the years for the dates, I don't think they were around back in 1802 Dohvahkiin (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism, already reverted. -- ferret (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

18th date

It seems i'm not the only one misleaded by the 18th date (two more edits so far)... i won't correct it again, and by the way thanks Ferret for changing the article to comprise both dates, but i'm still a litte confused.

The only date on official channel(s) seems to be the 14th US/15th Europe one, which misdirect users into correcting the latter.

I've been able to find the 18th date related just to the E3 event duration (16th to 18th), and can't find any direct evidence of the statement, found in linked article, The first full reveal of the game will be on June 18 at E3, Bethesda said.

ProprioMe OW (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It has a reliable secondary source. Bethesda may have responded directly to them as part of a press inquiry. Not all statements made to a secondary source will necessarily be available to us separately as a primary source. -- ferret (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Was more inclined towards a typo on that article, but probably you're right. Thanks. -- ProprioMe OW (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly possible, I won't deny it, but we can't make that determination. -- ferret (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Found other sources today mentioning both dates. We'll get more details June 14th during their press release (before E3 opens), but the big full reveal and show case is June 18th during E3 itself. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Irishtimes article was written today. Could it be that the writer checked this Wikipedia article and basically wrote what was already on here? I'm thinking that the Independent article might just have been a typo seeing as it doesn't mention June 14. The official twitter accounts of Bethesda Softworks and Bethesda Game Studios have no mention of June 18 but do mention June 14. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It just feels a little weird to go "We don't believe the RS is right"... Can we make that determination? But in my view, June 18th makes sense because it is during E3, while June 14 is a pre-show press conference before E3. Any "show case" would be at E3, not before. The press conference is likely to lots of details on Fallout 4, but also all the other projects Bethseda is working on, while the show case would be all Fallout. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
One more bit, but The Independent updated the title of the article since yesterday, and the title now includes "on June 18". Previously was only in the body of the article. -- ferret (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Bethesda's website says "The Showcase airs live around the world via Twitch and YouTube on June 14th at 7pm PST.": [1] The showcase is their pre-show conference. The Independent article seems to suggest this as well with the sentence that follows the June 18 part: "The E3 showcase is the first time that the company has been to the gaming conference." Nearly every other secondary source and official channels mention June 14 but don't mention June 18. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the 18th statement for now... Can always add back as things develop. -- ferret (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Butchered sentence

"This is able to house a smart phone device, cannot hold any iPhone after the fifth generation where the pip-boy housing for iPhone 5 and older , which can then run the second screen functionality of the game.[38]"

Hard to even know what the author intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.94.215 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the central phrase. As Wikipedia isn't a guide, I don't think it is necessary to mention which smart phone models are compatible and incompatible with the device. A description of its functionality is satisfactory. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

SandraReed 'Rumor'/Leak

Considering it was a fake leak with incorrect information, it seems right to remove it from the page? The information is entirely redundant because it leads into saying that all correct details came from the Kotaku leak, therefore thwatting anything leaked by SandraReed. I can't really see any reason to leave a redundant tidbit of leaked information there, especially because many readers may skim the page and see that then think said rumors were true ("PS3/360 Release") without reading the entire paragraph dedicated to it. It was confirmed at E3 that all SandraReed's leaked information was wrong. --66.229.236.165 (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd probably remove it. Even though some game websites did pick up on it, when you think about the scope of what this article will become, that reddit rumour doesn't have much weight or significance. It was false and debunked almost immediately upon going viral by a website that did leak correct information. We shouldn't necessarily report everything that game websites do, especially if it speculation and rumours. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015

68.52.140.26 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done It isn't what you want changing. --The1337gamer (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2015

Correct the following sentence: "Players have the ability to construct and deconstruct buildings and items, and use them to build a settlement, which can attract and inhabit other non-playable characters." The use of the word "inhabit" is incorrect. The sentence should read: Players have the ability to construct and deconstruct buildings and items, and use them to build a settlement, which can attract and be inhabited by other non-playable characters. Peterbrockmiller (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Kaciemonster (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence Structure

The section regarding the game's story has a very confusing structure, some words aren't capitalised, and there are missing spaces after commas/full stops. This should probably be changed. Unfortunately, the article can't be edited.


Below is the section in question with the problems in bold:


On the morning of October 23rd, 2077, The Player Characters is preparing to go to a Veteran's hall. While getting ready, a Vault-Tec representative approaches the family and approves them for admittance into Vault 111. Mere moments later, a news bulletin warns of an imminent nuclear attack, forcing the family and their son, Shaun to rush to the Vault, where they're temporarily trapped outside when a nuke detonates nearby.

Suddenly, the platform below them was lowered just in time, and the family along with all of the other residents were placed in cryosleep. Over two hundred years,an unknown assailants [is there only one assailant or multiple?] open the players's pod and forcibly take shaun. as the wife/husband resists; [the entire sentence may need revising] however this only results in her/him being killed by one of the accompanying mercenaries.Depends of the player character chooses to play as a male or female, The Sole Survivor is the only one to emerge from Vault 111. [needs space after full stop but most of the sentence is confusing]

After escaping Vault 111, the player returns to Sanctuary Hills, the estate where the Sole Survivor is from. The Survior founded their former robot-butler, Codsworth, who still resides there. Despite not understand Codsworth word about being on the Vault for 200 years, The Survivor stated they "didn't go that very long". Out-lands of Boston's city limits, the player found a long lost dog, named Dogmeat, who were looking for a new owners. [this paragraph is hard to understand]


Note: I haven't played the game, so I may have made some mistakes in my corrections.

JollyTurbo1 (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been removed entirely. It was basically a synopsis of the release trailer, rather than the plot of the game. -- ferret (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

IGN review score is 9.5 not 9.0

Kstarksss (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Already done -- ferret (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Release date

The release date in the beginning of the article says it was already released tomorrow. Being tomorrow, the date didn't happen yet, which means it was referring to speculation in the past tense. We don't need another ″Dewey Defeats Truman″. 69.119.172.116 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Time zones, my friend. November 9th at 8am EST is November 10th at 12am in New Zealand and Australia. The game has been unlocked in those markets already. -- ferret (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

This article doesn't make sense since 10th November is a future date and therefore a fictional date. One cannot say that a game "was released worldwide on 10 November, 2015" as this event has not happened yet. Let's not bullshit the system by writing on an extremely popular wikipedia page an event that has not happened (yet). Maxbenson156 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Time zones. At this point, eastern Europe is already November 10th. The game began to unlock in New Zealand 11 hours ago. Please remember that Wikipedia serves more than the USA. -- ferret (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

Fallout 4 received positive reviews to Fallout 4 received critical acclaim 88.203.12.89 (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Chamith (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

The line at the end is not correct:

"Fallout 4 broke the Steam record for most players concurrently online with almost 470,000 concurrent players, beating out the previous record holder Grand Theft Auto V.[60]"

If you read the claim's source carefully, you'll see that it's a record on Steam only among non-Valve developed games. I suggest something like:

"Fallout 4 broke the Steam record for most players concurrently online in a game not developed by Valve with almost 470,000 concurrent players, beating out the previous record holder Grand Theft Auto V.[60]" Ripsky4501 (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done --The1337gamer (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015

Please add infomation on mods 65.175.243.206 (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Year wrong, important for timeline setting

In the first part it says it takes place 200 years after the nuclear war (was was in 2077), but it's 210 years, which is important cause 2277 is when fallout 3 happens and fallout 4 is not going on at the same time as the third game but it 10 years after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandJS (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume this is stated by Bethesda somewhere? The games are also unrelated so in that respect I imagine it wouldn't matter that much. But I haven't played the game yet so I don't know what its supposed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.109.63.17 (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015

Hey. If you see the game credits, you will notice that Behaviour Interactive also worked on the game - programming, art, design and etcs. Because I can't edit the page, you can do it as "Additional development: Behaviour Interactive". BorisDG (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article was the 8th most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 880,018 views for the week November 8 to 14, 2015. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

I would like to change the game's reception status. Instead of "positive" reviews, I would like to change it to " universal acclaim". RikuSlayer345 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: "Universal acclaim" is a weasel word. It is not "universally acclaimed" as well AdrianGamer (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on December 3 2015

Can this be put in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Slow_motion_video_games Because of VATS, which automatically slows the game so you can target your opponents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layla, the remover (talk • contribs) 01:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A negative review.

Per NPOV, the Reception section must have input from negative reviews too. I found one already from a reliable source. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Also the article has no mention of the large number of negative USER reviews. 109.152.235.209 (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of the negative reviews need to be added, but we do not mention user reviews (Whether negative or positive) because they are inherently unreliable sources. Unless a reliable source happens to comment on the user reviews in some way to make them notable, we don't include them. -- ferret (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't use the metadata on user reviews because they're unreliable? And game review companies' reviews ARE reliable? What a crock. You use the Metacritic score, but fail to mention there are more negative user reviews than positive for the PC version. Steam is a bit different picture, where just under 80% of user reviews are positive. I'd say the opinion of the actual gaming community is far more reliable than the opinions of people paid by companies to write reviews. If you don't say something about negative reviews from the actual gaming community, then you're covering up negative opinions about the game and showing biased. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be as unbiased as possible? There's a little subject called Statistics. Eventually the user reviews will even out and reflect the opinion of the community within a certain error margin. This is no different than polls, which are cited all the time in Wikipedia. If it is some sort of policy on Wikipedia to not use user reviews, then that policy needs to change. But I doubt it's a policy. More likely it's just the decision of a few elite editors of game articles. 184.21.248.228 (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Except when polls are official, user ratings aren't. User ratings can be filled with developers praising their games to sky high, and haters trashing the game without playing it. There is no way it reflects "community" response. The only time community reception can be included is that it is mentioned and covered by multiple reliable sources. For example, the backlash caused by the new Dante from DmC can be mentioned. It is a guideline that should be followed, and this shouldn't be an exception. See WP:USERG. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand the concern IP-184.21.248.228 has regarding how to source and handle reviews. In personal opinion (which doesn't matter here) I also feel that critic reviews don't mean anything because these are not the people that will create the hardcore base of the game. I have had the same issue in the past with Starcraft II where game reviewers say one thing, but every single review from the professional gamers was neglected. A reviwer will never understand the as intimate and torought as the professional tournament gamers. but yet these aren't counted as part of the "score" as being 'biased' or 'unreliable'.
I however can also say that using statistics in the instance has no real value yet either because the game was only just released. For proper statistics you'll have to wait some time for the normal distribution of data to take good effect (the amount of reviews provided from ALL sources compared to the amount of ACTUAL users. So yeah, its a very tricky subject. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I am also of the mind that the current listing of reviews and overall reception description paint a very one-sided picture. There is a vast discrepancy between the few mentioned official reviews and the average user rating on Metacritic currently based on around 12000 ratings across all platforms. I also agree on the notion that professional reviews are in many cases unreliable because of the game press' increasing dependency on the goodwill of publishers to be able to release reviews in time to gain traffic revenue, not to mention the possibility of sponsored content. It seems that on Wikipedia a better policy is in order where average user ratings (not specific ones) will be taken into account when describing how a game has been received. Even though user ratings can be unreliable, thousands of them arguably paint a much more objective picture than the overly rosy ratings of the established game press. A suggestion would be to include the average Metacritic user rating next to the average press rating in the reception info box. DJ 188.205.25.86 (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss changing Wikipedia project policy. User reviews are inherently unreliable and cannot be used. If a reliable source has taken note of the user reviews and provided commentary on it, we can use that. We cannot synthesize our own views or analysis of the user reviews. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I see your point, Ferret. The following article on Kotaku offers an extensive analysis on Fallout 4's reception among the user base and the apparent discrepancy with early game press ratings. (Which certainly is a big difference and worth mentioning on this page). It quotes and summarizes a variety of both Steam and Metacritic user reviews: http://kotaku.com/fallout-4-is-not-the-fallout-fans-fell-in-love-with-1745651992 Editingpony (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem often is that user reviews aren't as well maintained by a metacritic-like site does. They could still be used for a statistical analysis of the 'comments' from all the users. I agree that a review from a user is hardly reliable, only because its often based on owned experience, but collected samples from thousands of users can serve statistical purpose. Scourge Splitter (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Fan Backlash

I don't know if it's NPOV or not, but as someone who's "in the trenches" of the PC launch I can tell you this is a very controversial game. It has thousands of negative user reviews on Steam and tons on Amazon as well. Some are criticizing what they perceive to be dumbed down mechanics, but vastly more are lamenting bugs and poor optimization while others report an inability to even play the product due to crashes. Also the whole 5gig on disc, 20 gig dl for the physical PC release is pretty controversial. The reason people buy physical copies is usually because their internet isn't a viable option. So people with bad internet who are 90% of the physical copy market are essentially paying for a box with a digital download code in it. I dunno. I've seen a lot of launches and this one is so bad that it seems worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User reviews by themselves, sourced directly from just Steam, Amazon and/or Metacritic etc are considered self-published and are not reliable. In an instance where they are cited, it is typically in regards to a wider issue reported by other sources (see Portal 2 as an example of this). To be honest though, sometimes it feels like every other major release, particularly on PC has this happen. Frankly Man (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Do community forums have a role in this maybe? In happen to know that for many games, when troubles arises, the forums are full of it. all complaints can be gathered and provide a good view on the severity and reliability of the issue which is being complaint about. I know this is a drag, but one of the most reliable way for troublesolving issues. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Forum posts are self-published, hence not reliable. See WP:RS. --The1337gamer (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
As the first tier these "types of data" are normally accumulated for statistical analysis. Each datapoint, usually a first-party one, contributes to say something about the reliability over time. What I'm trying to say here, it that the accumulation of data creates the so-called "reliable sources" needed for wiki. only difference is that a "wiki-reliable" source has done the work for you. And considering how little time has gone by since the release of Fallout 4, Id say not enough time has passed for data accumulation and accuracy of them. (ie. most people who detect something that off straight after release might not be accurate) but the accumulation over time and increase of data creates the reliability one seeks. But all I wanted to say here really is: IS "Reliable sourcing" also counting these datapoints? because 100k user reviews tell far more than 50 'reliable' critic reviews. That is statistics. But I'm going to stop here as I wavering off. The discussion into what makes something reliable doesn't fit here. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted a link to a reliable source in the "Negative review" section on this talk page which essentially is the same discussion as this one. The article offers an analysis of the overall user reception and the disparity with the ratings from early press reviews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fallout_4#A_negative_review. Editingpony (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I realize I was beaten to it. Good Job! Scourge Splitter (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The plot

I just tore out nearly a thousand characters of plot, but apparently it's "too dramatic". Would the editors involved care to explain that justification, given that their preferred version goes into excessive levels of detail on the final missions, like recruiting Dr. Li. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the plot section being "dramatic" is really a problem. The plot section having excessive length and details are what we do not prefer. Your trim to the section is reasonable to me. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm just going by WP:PLOT, which says that plots should be between 400 and 700 words. Granted, I only know it in the context of films, but I don't see why games should be any different. There are some exceptions to the rule, such as complex and non-linear storytelling, and I think Fallout 4 satisfies that condition—but at the same time, there is an excess level of detail in those endings. Why are the likes of Ronnie Grey and Madison Li so crucial to the reader's understanding of the endings? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2016

please add in the DLC window(download able content) between "for players to put captured creatures or humans in a cage" and ".[50] The third DLC, titled Far Harbor, is a" the following " and adds a great varity of decorations like neon lights and lettering.


so the download able look like this:


On February 16, 2016, Bethesda announced details, prices, and release dates for the first three add-ons for Fallout 4.[47][48] The first DLC, Automatron, which allows players to build their custom robot companion by using robot parts, was released to the European and North American markets on March 22, 2016.[49] This was followed by Wasteland Workshop on April 12, 2016, which introduces new build options for settlements and the ability for players to put captured creatures or humans in a cage and adds a great varity of decorations like neon lights and lettering.[50] The third DLC, titled Far Harbor, is a story expansion that is set to be released in May 2016, depicting a post-war Maine.[51] Richardpower (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Done AdrianGamer (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

More critical reviews?

This article seems to lack more critical reviews of the game. Despite the majority of reviews being positive in general, there are some negatives which I believe are not accounted for. Can they be added in? Dr. Doctor (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

As long as they are from reliable sources, feel free to add them. A list of vetted reliable sources for video games can be found at WP:VG/RS. It's not exhaustive, but if you stick with that list you should be good as far as reliability. If page protection prevents you from adding, leave an edit request here, and I'll add it for you (Or another watcher will). -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I believe that would be undue weight. There is a good reason most of the reviews are positive. Portraying this game in a more negative light is encroaching on Armond White territory. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not undue weight if those reviews are indeed accurate. When WP:RS sourced, and they show negative aspects of the game if must be included. I have however not come across such reports yet. Scourge Splitter (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The above stated is indeed true. However, again, who is the true judge and the jury here? Who are the real people to judge? At the end of the day, many modern video game journalists do not come from the traditional of paper and print, but are online modern bloggers who eventually gained enough fame to band together to start online review sites. The real reviewers that came from the traditonal magazine and newspaper reviews are few and far in between, and diluted in the modern digital sites amongst the mediocre bloggers. Unless you plan on verifying each author, their past and their present and their credentials, and then deciding if a review is professional and thus worthy of Wikipedia or not?
I have been a gamer for 16 years. More than 80% of my life. I have played more games than I can remember, and I've forgotten more games I've played than the ones I remember. I have been a student of media, international relations, sociology, and history. My profession is business. What exactly does this make me? Am I worthy yet of being a analyst and a critic of video games in my own right? Or am I not, simply because I've never bothered blogging about it? Does that last question render my voice moot, irrelevant and inconsequential? Not the least when it has been proven that many video game journalist sites have their ads funded by video game publishers and developers, and constantly gift their writers merchandise and goodies?
Think now, that there are thousands, millions like me who have been around since the dawn of gaming, since before Fallout 1 in fact, and found Fallout 4 an utterly bad Fallout game. Why this elitism? Why do the chosen few get to decide how a game is, allocating a score to it and implicitly making it an objective statement of the game's reception? The mere fact that there are over 7000 people who found Fallout 4 bad does not count against the fact that less than 100 people found it good sets my blood boiling.
Wikipedia has a responsibility to fair and impartial representation of information. It is disgusting that the Metacritic score should only count the critic reviews, not the gamer reviews. Which is its own form of irony, since the most cursory basic thinking should dictate that the gamers should count more than critics. Damn the jury and the one person-one vote, eh? 39.48.9.219 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Fallout 4 is an rpg, which is an role playing game and it is a great one in terms that it makes you feel like you are in the game it self. from the beging of the game you put a lot of time in making your character and your characters spouse. in due time you feel like they are a part of you then all hell brakes lose, the bombs are coming down and you go in to the shelter you feel safe then you are frozen then for a moment you are unfroze only to see your spouse get killed and your baby taken away. You as the player control the events next you can get free ten years later to take revenge and get your baby back or you can wander the wasteland and do anything you want and eventually get your revenge if that is to your likening. You are the person that controls your faith in the game the world is at your disposal, its in your hands you decide on what you level up and become good at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8BA8:A800:D176:E93C:65F2:420B (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Fallout 4 Music

Do you think it would be possible to include a list of the music used on the radio stations (especially 'Diamond City Radio')? Titles, artists, and dates. It may need to be a new article. Thank You. 184.56.75.94 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, read #14 at WP:VGSCOPE. --The1337gamer (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I know for a fact that Diamond city radio has The Wanderer (Dion), Butcher Peat (Part one and two, I don't remember the creator and singer of it), and that The classical radio has Ride Of The Valkyries Benners88 (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Benners88: "Butcher Pete" (Parts 1 and 2) by Roy Brown. Part 1 was also in Fallout 3. CrashUnderride 21:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fallout 4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"DVD" version is a scam

Add the fact that the supposed "DVD" retail release of the game contains only 1/8 of the game data. I would never consider buying a game that involves such a scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.86.132 (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@193.170.86.132: any sources to back up this claim? Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not a 'scam.' Games that do this (pretty much all Bethesda games in the last 5 years), say on the box that they don't contain the game itself. If the box contained the entire game it would require a dozen discs. It's also much easier to pirate a disc than a DRM-protected license. I agree that it sucks. People buying the discs do so usually because of slow internet. But it's the way it is and has been this way for a while now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor proofread

In the Story section, it says "they learn about a secretive organization called the Institute that has beeb terrifying the Commonwealth by kidnapping people". Should be "been", of course. Also, "The Sole Survivor kills Kellogg, avenging their spouse's murder. Thet retrieve a cybernetic implant from Kellogg's brain" (They)160.93.6.5 (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality

Based on the fact that Far Harbor is a featured article, and that this page seems quite complete, this page should be ranked of higher quality, perhaps a good article to start. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.103.149 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2017‎ (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. The Story subsection is quite bloated if you take MOS:PLOT into consideration. Also, there's an unresolved {{vague}} template under the Engine subsection. -- ChamithN (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure about there being bloat, but perhaps there is, and it seems like the unresolved {{vague}} is a fairly minor issue to me. If these are the two biggest concerns I don't see why this article isn't rated B class already. And it shouldn't take too much to get it to good status from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.103.149 (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Since I only checked the article superficially, those two were the only major issues I noticed. So, there might be other issues that I didn't mention; citation and grammar issues for example. But yes, if you, the nominator, is willing to commit to fix the issues that the reviewer will point out, I too believe it mightn't take too much to get it to good status. I'll help anyway I can. -- ChamithN (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Creation club

I don't own this game, but in the steam reviews there's a lot of reference to Creation Club updates ruining the game. Should the creation club be mentioned perhaps? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, yes, but not from the basis of Steam reviews. Besides the WP:USERG reason, they're mostly driven by backlash to any sort of paid mod content. Need to cover it with secondary reliable sources, which do exist. Note Creation Club does have a stub article as well. -- ferret (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Here's a reference: https://www.polygon.com/2017/9/11/16270482/fallout-4-creation-club-mods-issues-pete-hines which, by the way, mentions: "cynics remain concerned that, should Creation Club become a success, it would only make sense for Bethesda to continue and expand the business model. That’s obvious from Fallout 4’s recent Steam reviews, which are overwhelming negative and all focused on Creation Club." I personally feel that if a lot of players are making a ruckus about something in their steam reviews, it's apparently a thing. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it's obvious that we should cover the issue of public reaction to the creation club (see [2], [3], [4] and [5]). But we need to be careful to do so objectively, because we all probably have opinions on it. (Personally, I DGAF about creation club so long as they keep releasing the CK with the game and don't get in the habit of DCMAing modders). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I've never played Fallout 4 and until recently hadn't heard about the creation club. But i did play all games until Fallout 3 with all expansions and i own New Vegas. So i dare say i know the universe, but I don't really have an opinion on the creation club. I do, however, have a question. Apparently, there are two separate issues as far as i understand: 1. the introduction of the creation club, which boils down to paid contend from modders hired as developers, which offenden part of the community. I don't have a personal opinion, but i do understand what the issue is. 2. The second issue i don't quite understand. Apparently there's also an issue of frequent updates. Perhaps the issue is the large amount of data being downloaded when opening the game, so the time it takes before you can play? Apparently it is also downloads when you didn't purchase any of it. Can anyone who owns the game tell more about the second issue? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the issue is the large amount of data being downloaded when opening the game, so the time it takes before you can play? Not speaking from RSes here, just my own experience. I believe so. I can definitely see a difference between running an earlier runtime of the game and later ones (though in my case it loads fast, but stutters with low framerate for up to ~45 seconds with later runtimes). I've seen that another factor is that anytime they update versioning, it breaks the Fallout 4 Script Extender which is required for a large number of mods. It also frequently breaks ENB, another framework (this one for rendering) which is required by many "mods". Hence, frequent updates by Bethesda can actually break the game for many people, especially when you consider how many players actually use mods. I have no hard numbers (and I'm too lazy to research it), but I'd guess more than half of all players play with at least one mod, and maybe as many as a third use at least one of those frameworks I mentioned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Gameplay

In the Gameplay section of the article, it is claimed that "For the first time in the series, these companions can interact with the environment on the player character's behalf". This is, however, not true. This was already possible in Fallout 2, for instance; if you had a low Science skill level and tried to hack a computer terminal while Vic was in your party, Vic would automatically try to hack the terminal instead of the player character. KeSSenCHu (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sales

The sales bit requires an update, it says right there in the citation that Pete Hines clarified he was only comparing the sales of Fallout 4 and Skyrim during the same time period, not overall. Fallout did not surpass Skyrim sales as it sits around 30 million copies while Fallout 4 going by all statisical data is at 13 million copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.138.225.75 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I verified this in the source and made the change. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Liberty Prime

Why is there no mention of Liberty Prime in this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:412B:6300:7595:CF79:5601:6813 (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Request received to merge articles: Creation Club into Fallout 4; dated: December 2020. Proposer's Rationale: Contents of article is not notable enough or fleshed out enough to warrant maintaining its own article. Current information could well easily fit into its own sub section in the game's article. -- Tytrox (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose nominated target Not a clear target for the merge, just the first game to feature it. Creation Club applies to two games, currently. A merger to Bethesda Game Studios or Creation Engine may be more proper. -- ferret (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ferret, Creation Club isn't an Fallout 4 exclusive thing nor is it directly a part of Fallout 4. Merry Christmas! Asartea Talk Contribs! 16:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"Super Mutant" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Super Mutant. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Super Mutant until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 16:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fallout_4/Archive_1&oldid=1143743242"