Casual players will always make up the lion's share of the market, so they are who developers cater to.

That's why we have fast travel. It's why we're losing skills. It's why our actions no longer have any real consequences and most content can be accessed in a single play through. Not necessarily bad things, just different expectations of what a good game is.

To be fair we still don't have confirmation that skills are removed. Given that the pip-boy tabs fade out it could still be there and the beginning just wasn't fully implemented or the tutorial is longer. Remember we didn't get to pick our skills right off the bat in Oblivion or Fallout 3. I don't think the tutorial we saw at E3 was the fullest, just a slight sneak peak as we don't know a damn thing about what happens after the character entered the vault.

You have a point, but I'm done with giving Bethesda the benefit of the doubt. Not after the whole voiced protagonist thing.

If it looks to be bad, it'll likely be bad.

Nope. Going from Morrowind to Oblivion the leveling system remained intact (attributes/skills). Same deal with Oblivion into Fallout 3 - it kept the original system (special/skills). The elimination of attributes in Skyrim was due to the addition of perks. It functioned in largely the same way attributes did (I would have adjusted it slightly though - like each race having various early level perks unlocked to reflect their race's proficiency in something). Each game sold better than it's previous installment while maintaining much of the same core mechanics. The pre-conceived notion that casuals are the reason for things like skill removal or fast travel is ignorant.

Skills aren't going to be in Fallout 4 in the manner that we're used to. I'm hesitant about it, but then again I had qualms with the original skill system to begin with. In what manner skills are functioning is up for discussion. I'm almost confident we're going to see a reverse version of Skyrim's leveling mechanic (attributes and perks instead of skills and perks).

You mean they removed obvious RPG mechanics from a game that identifies itself as an RPG, but plays as an Action/Adventure, and they didn't do it to cater to casual players?

Of course each game sold better. If casual gamers outnumber every other kind of gamer, then catering to them is going to result in larger sales numbers. If you think they did what they did purely for the sake of "enhancing" their games, why did they include a magical compass that knows all in a game that's supposed to be about exploring the world and doing whatever you want? Why didn't they continue on with the complexity of Morrowind, where you actually had to read a journal to find what you were looking for?

Because casual gamers don't like to read. They just want to play the game, and that is what Fallout 4 is going to allow them to do. Literally everything Bethesda does is to make their games more accessible. That's just another way of saying they're marketing more toward casual gamers than anyone else, because hardcoe Fallout fans and RPG fans don't care for accessibility if it means sacrificing core components of the genre or franchise.

Still there.

If you honestly believe that complexity is defined by one's ability to decipher vague map directions, then all the power to you, friendo.

Good thing games like Wasteland 2, FNV, Fo3 exist

Not entirely.

I think complexity is defined by a number of things, but the most important would be the game letting you think for yourself and act on your own. No essential NPCs. No fast travel using a Pip-Boy. No omniscient compass. No inability to actually fail quests. No inability to refuse to accept quests. The list goes on and on.

Yeah, Wasteland 2, F:NV, and FO3 still do exist. But in 10 years, when all the new AAA games are quasi-clones of each other, can it really be considered a viable alternative to go back and play through those same three games for the thousandth time each?

-i.e. the core mechanics. The definition of an RPG is subjective. In fact, all definitions are subjective as over-time the meaning of things shifts and changes. I feel that Fo3 and Skyrim both chiefly market themselves as action and adventure games with RPG elements.

-You could fail quests in Fo3. You could say "no thanks" to quest givers in Skyrim. You could avoid fast travel altogether by not using it. The compass was an extreme solution to an extreme problem - it should have toed the line in the sand (optional).

-Hasty generalization

The definition of an RPG within the Fallout franchise is not subjective.

You couldn't fail quests in Skyrim. You were also given quests without notice just by talking to an NPC or overhearing a conversation. Fast travel is optional, I'll give you that, but for how long? The compass was an extreme solution to something that worked just fine. There's absolutely no reason to have something like that in a game where you expect the players to become immersed -- being told exactly where everything is not immersive. Having details pop up in your "quest log" that the quest giver made no mention of is not immersive.

Not at all.

Define RPG.

-The belief that the directions in Morrowind weren't an extreme problem is naive. I speak for many when I say I would prefer to focus on the world itself rather than grovel around in the UI looking at directions. I'll borrow sorcererdave's words on the matter, but immersion in a game sometimes has to take a hit when it comes to gameplay.

For as long as you want to? I have a playthrough in Skyrim without any use of fast travel (carriages being the exception).

The fallout franchise isn't about a silent protagonist at all. All games before 3 couldn't have had it due to technical limitations.

3 didn't because that's what Beth do. NV didn't because it was basically a mod for 3.

4 now has it because with the resources available Beth thought they'd try something new to help their narrative.

Any game that supports a defined character, and that is designed to bend and twist its narrative to react to that character's choices in conversation and in action.

*That's a minimum RPG, but not necessarily what constitutes a good one.

• The character can be predefined for the player, or one they devise themselves, if the game allows.
• Ideally the choices committed to in character development should open some pathways, and immutably close others, by affecting the available choices, and actions.
• There should always be at least one completable path through the game for the developed character. A gameplay concession
• The narrative shouldn't have to reveal every location, or all content in the game to any one character. RPG characters are like a lens into their world,
  and the player should be excluded from content that their character cannot provide access to; that's why they should play more than one before they get to see it all.
• Ideally there should be no respec option. A character's development is a commitment, and 'repecing' a PC can remove the abilities that enabled past decisions,
  while allowing them to keep the benefits and rewards attained from them. Respec is the ultimate tell of the casual came; and a bane to the credibility of any RPG.

Bethesda does not regard its games as action and adventure games with RPG elements, nor even as action-game/RPG hybrids. They view them as RPGs.

Their marketing emphasizes features they consider to be the most popular and exciting.

It might be enough to say that an RPG is any game played through role-play. That definition describes Fallout, Fallout 3, Skyrim, and table-top RPGs. The same definition excludes Doom, Batman: Arkham Asylum, and Pac-Man.

The makers of the old Fallout games had no reason to even consider recording a voice for the protagonist, because from their point of view, the protagonist isn't silent.

They also probably couldn't even if they wanted to, so is basically the same as what I said.

Yep, I misread your earlier statement. Thanks for pointing it out.

Yea man. I think voice would have been good for a lot of old RPGs had they had the ability.

How old are you talking about? (Just curious.)

They always had the ability (if they had or would spend the money), it was the media cost that prevented it. Any older game designed expecting to release on CD had the space for voice work. Some games were even designed to stream audio off the CD from a standard red-book audio track; you could play the disc in a CD player. , but should not play track 1 [game data].

Lands of Lore: Throne of Chaos is one of the better dungeon crawlers I've played. The https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ2k5-viJ78, and the floppy version didn't; and http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Gizmojunk006/lol_zpsnmh2kuje.jpg, just for the base game [around 42Mb installed]. Stone Keep was a good crawler as well, and it had voiced NPCs; some would sing. These games shipped between 1993-95.

I'm talking 8bit and 16bit era RPGs as well as maybe some PS games.

Aight, so I'm just going to jump in here and generally reply to all the "having a voiced protagonist is bad because that takes funds/time away from NPC dialog/other things, having a non-voiced protagonist is better because you can see the full line, make up your own tone, etc."

First, with regards to the whole budgeting debate; let's say you're right, and say that time/money could have gone to more NPC responses, armor for your dog, or some other feature. So what? The time/money was put towards a voiced protagonist, a feature Bethesda, I, and many others think would make a great (and long overdue) addition to the series. You disagree, and think the time/money is better spent somewhere else. Good for you. You have things you value over a voice protagonist, and we value a voiced protagonist over those things. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't act like the game is made objectively worse just because there's a feature you don't like.

Speaking of... Second: with regards to the whole "see the full line, make up your own tone": No offense, but if having that level of control over the imaginative experience is what you want, go read a book. Books are wonderful in that your mind is the only limit, and you can imagine characters, locations, etc however you want. Videogames, however, are visual and auditory experiences. While you can certainly have games that succeed without a voiced protagonist (hi, Portal), an RPG demands a voiced protagonist; having the protagonist be unvoiced was an obsolete hangover from the days when company's didn't have the tech or the budget to have all those lines be voiced. hardcoe Fallout fans are in the extreme minority here; the vast majority of gamers (many of them casual, to be sure, but they count too) want a protagonist they can see and hear; Bethesda is going to cater to that majority whether you like it or not, because they want to move as many copies of their game as possible.

I empathize with ya'll, really, I do. I'm incredibly upset with the direction the Halo franchise has been going the last two games (Halo 5 is going to be the first Halo I won't be buying). Cutting splitscreen and closing the skill-gap between casual and experienced players are absolute deal-breakers for me, but I understand why they're doing it; they're willing to make an inferior product in order to appeal to a larger audience. The difference here is I honestly don't think adding a voiced protagonist objectively results in an inferior product (ESPECIALLY if they give you the option to mute the protagonist).

Books aren't interactive.

And a highly interactive narrative is one of Fallout's biggest draws.

Have you read the given reasoning? Mute is moot. The option to mute the PC is not the issue, and doesn't fix the issue. The issue is that they wrote the conversations expecting a voiced PC; and limited to the need for a recorded response for every statement. Muting the volume doesn't change this.

Issue#2, all user NPC dialog will now have to have PC voiced replies that make sense in their conversations; about their custom subjects and interactions... At best they might be able recycle PC lines; I doubt they will legally be allowed to splice new dialog from the assets, and include that in their mods. At worse, the user quests cannot blend in with the game, because the PC will be mute in a game where they are fully voiced.

I can agree with that (maybe).

An unvoiced protagonist is not, however, "an obsolete hangover" from a time when companies were unable (for whatever reason) to have the protagonist voiced. That the one who plays the role has sole responsibility for giving voice to the role is a carry-over from pencil-and-paper RPGs. In Dungeons & Dragons, you don't have a talented voice actor sitting on your lap ready to take over for you whenever it is time for your character to speak.

Bethesda always seem to have been pretty relaxed about modders using modified game assets in their mods. Modified textures, models, effects - not really a problem. The big no-no is using an asset from one game in another. That is not allowed.

I seriously doubt they'd throw a fit about using parts of the player-dialogue to add new player dialogue, although we'd have to know Bethesda's official stance on the matter. It's still early days on that; too early to be blasé, but also too early to be fretting.

We don't know. Sounds are often a different issue, and they've probably licensed a few sound effect archives that are not theirs to give free use of. Presumably the voices of the PCs are all theirs, but we don't know that either. Their terms may not have been 'work for hire'. They may not be allowed to permit derivative usage.

Fallout is supposed to allow the same kind of freedom that TES allows. Skyrim was made only a few years back, and it had a silent protagonist.

Why does a silent protagonist work for TES games, but no longer for Fallout games? Where is the reasoning in that? Having a voiced protagonist limits freedom. It limits choice. It limits what Bethesda was able to do in their game.

Would all of you support the next TES game also having a voiced protagonist?