What could possibly cause a game that came out close to a decade after Fallout 3 to be a vastly inferior roleplaying game? For starters, ask yourself what *you* expect from a game when you buy an open-world RPG.

Well, nevermind all that - after having played Fallout 4 I'd be happy if it was so much as a carbon copy of Fallout 3 or New Vegas, truth be told it's not even in the ballpark on that front. I thought it would be the postapocalyptic pendent to Witcher 3, turns out it's the postapocalyptic version of Far Cry - minus some of the entertaining characters. (The Witcher 3 hammers that point home for sure) Which is why I was so sure that the previous 'King of the Hill' of immersive RPG's would positively outdo itself in its newest itineration, as well as retain all the great stuff that fans of roleplaying games have come to expect from it. The sheer amount of depth, immersion, gameplay and graphics quality of quite a few of them is impressive - we're no longer forced to make great consessions in favor of a superior RPG experience. (Lengthy read ahead) Over the better part of a decade, a whole crop of great, immersive open-world RPG's have been released. I only wish I'd read some before throwing money at this game, as it turns out, the only fool is me. Please consider user reviews before making this (expensive) purchase people, there's quite a lot critics just don't touch on. Like many, I've enjoyed previous Fallout games (a little too much) so here's the review I thought I'd never write.

Fallout 4 no karma