The issue is that even when you compare Fallout 4's RPG mechanic style to things like Witcher 3 (Which I despise, so don't try and claim I'm some Witcher fan boy. I'm far from it) and Mass Effect it's RPG mechanics are still watered down by comparison.

Like I've said from the beginning, people here can try and defend it all they want to but there's a very valid reason why it's RPG mechanics have been one of it's biggest criticisms.

That's not true. The Witcher has much in common with games like Ultima and Gothic. You're right, there are different types of RPGs -- Bethesda makes open-world RPGs which are action heavy like Might and Magic.


The original Fallout titles were quite unique upon release with tons of dialog and varying choices, very much akin to Ultima 7.


Fallout 3 has quite a bit more of this, and this is what is almost missing in Fallout 4.

I wouldn't compare Fallout 4 to Fallout New Vegas as Fallout New Vegas was developed by Obsidian Entertainment not a Bethesda studio, although it was published by Bethesda. Now I can compare Fallout 4 to Fallout 3, as they are both made by Bethesda Game Studios and in my opinion Fallout 4 is a HUGE improvement over Fallout 3, although I do seem to have explored most locations by level 23, so a bigger map would have been nice. I suppose that will change with Far Harbor since they advertise it as the biggest landmass they have created for a DLC yet.

Let me ask you this, how much has your characters actions and dialog responses affected the game world? In previous Fallout games, especially the originals, you could make a ton of different characters, and each experience would be different -- different choices, different quests, different outcomes. I don't see this in Fallout 4.

Considering Fallout New Vegas ran on the same engine that Fallout 3 did and used many of the same assets, I see no reason why we shouldn't compare them.

As far as Fallout 4 being a big improvement on Fallout 3, that depends on the area of the game. Gameplay wise yeah, there's no question that Fallout 4 is an improvement. Fallout 3's gameplay was heavily criticized and rightfully so. RPG wise, Fallout 4 is a step down compared to both Fallout 3 and New Vegas (No, I'm not talking about the voiced protagonist) and has been heavily criticized because of it.

Judging by the majority on big youtube channels that's all about Fallout I say 80% to 20% in favor of Fallout New Vegas.

Why shouldn't we be able to compare them? Bethesda gave Obsidian the rights to make that game. Hopefully they'll do it again.

Fallout 4 isn't the future of RPGs. Fallout 4 seem to be more of a action adventure compared to a RPG like New Vegas.

Yep.

Actually very little changes in New Vegas's world. Sure endings are different but the way New Vegas did endings was you read/listen to them. They're exposition dumps not actually seeing your actions take effect whereas in Fallout 4 I see my actions take effect with the Settlement system, I've built entire settlements, I've essentially created a small country with it's own supply line, military force and economy.

So now I ask, what major things change in New Vegas depending on your actions? Besides slaughtering an entire population like the Boomers or the Great Khans there isn't much. I can wipe out the NCRCF but Powder Gangers still spawn, I can kill the entire Fiends's leadership but they still spawn, settlements stay the same with never any real change, characters usually stay the same, there is really never any real noticeable impact beyond what ending slider you get or who aids you at the final battle.

The closest I can think of is maybe Bitter Springs getting more troops, Caesar's Legion taking over Helios One when the NCR gets killed and Camp Forlorn Hope or Nelson getting taken by the opposition and hit squads spawning and that's it. Note, that even if you destroy settlements nothing happens. Hell, Fallout 4 even does screwing over a faction better with the fact you can basically eliminate the main base of opposing factions and it shows unlike NV where killing a leader has no real effect on the world. Securitrons still protect the Strip, Legion still runs raids in the Mojave and prepares the final battle, NCR still fights the final battle. Nothing changes.


Except a lot of the mechanics in 3 were flawed, skills were badly implemented and had problems (Which NV tried to fix which didn't honestly work out well either) and karma. Skill-related dialogue options aren't a main facet of RPG mechanics given most rpgs don't use them, even ones where role-playing mechanics are the main appeal so they don't count and Dues Ex Machina and Witcher are proof you can do an RPG system entirely based on perk progression instead of skills, this is also taking into consideration that skills in general were pretty damn useless in 3 and NV and only acted as locks you needed to progress in to take a certain perk which mattered more. It also doesn't help that most people complete their build before even reaching close to the level cap leading to people being forced to dump skill points into useless skills that they're never going to use which to some people kills an rpg more, with Fallout 4 taking a perk is an option, not a requirement in order to keep playing the game.

It's crazy to think that not too long ago we were looking forward to games like Arcanum and Baldurs Gate 2, with tons of content and different styles of gameplay, dialog focused, great writing, now we get tons of mediocre cinematics and kill cams -- I hardly call Fallout 4 innovative. It's fun, but it's not even really a deep game in any sense, which is something I've traditionally looked forward to from the Fallout series.


I really can't understand how anyone could consider this game deep in any sense. It's really a kill and loot game with railroaded quests, shallow characters, and poor quality dialog and writing.


I suppose many of the fans might not understand this sentiment, but it's the difference between Barefoot and a nice bottle of Chambertin. Or maybe a bud light as opposed to a Racer 5.


Edit: To Cider, I really want to respond to your post, it looks well thought out, and I have some thoughts of my own, but I'm on my phone right now, and it only has a small retina screen.


I'll just say, I don't disagree entirely, but I think you're really ignoring the many quests in New Vegas that do have an impact. I'll just mention the first quest in the game where you can aid or fight against the powder gangers -- in effect deciding the future of goodsprings.


There's more quests such as this. To be honest, I'd be more inclined to compare Fallout 4 to Fallout 1 to see the real distinctions in the quality of quests.

Witcher 3 and Dues EX are also vastly better RPGs than Fallout 4 is. I have no issue admitting Witcher 3 is a good RPG even though I hate it, why do you have such a hard time admitting that Fallout 4's RPG mechanics aren't that good?

If you want to ignore Fallout 4's massive criticism on it's RPG mechanics that's up to you. I will not however because they are completely valid. To put it simple, Fallout 4 is a shallow RPG regardless of what you think and it's suffered for it critically.

Because they are good, they're perfectly fine and in fact improve on some of the archaic and bad mechanics 3 and New Vegas had that kinda actually hurt the games. There is nothing wrong with Fallout 4's mechanics.

They aren't good and you continuously saying they are won't change the fact that they are bad. If you legitimately think they are good then you haven't played many good RPGs. I'm not talking about old schools RPGs either, I'm talking about RPGs of all types.

They are shallow at worst and serviceable at best, but they are not good. You may find people who agree on these forums, but outside of these forums shallow RPG mechanics are a common criticism for Fallout 4. There is nothing you can say to me or anyone else who agrees with me so you may as well stop trying to convince us to be honest. Not only would you have a lot of people to convince, but attempting to do so would be pointless. We won't change our minds.

I hope Obsidian does another Fallout, there are some news articles on Gamespot on how they would like to and something about they were going to look into it.

What I mean about why they shouldn't be compared is the fact Fallout New Vegas had a lot of cut scenes with the DLC included that really went into business on your decisions and the overall story line and I actually felt like they explained the outcomes of most of every decision. Fallout 4 and Fallout 3 don't have any cut scenes besides the beginning and ending one of the main game and don't have nearly as good of a story as New Vegas, meaning in story aspect Fallout New Vegas is superior where as Fallout 4 wins in gameplay over New Vegas for me. This is my personal opinion in the fact that Obsidian knows how to make an excellent story line where as Bethesda Game Studios excells in gameplay. Now I'm not saying Bethesda doesn't make a good story don't get me wrong, but it just feels like Obsidian does it a tad better. Fallout 3's story line was really good, but Fallout 4's ending Brotherhood Of Steel story line was good, but I felt like I wanted to know more to be honest. I am saying Brotherhood Of Steel, as it's the only Fallout 4 story line I have completed out of the 4 possible ones so far, but I am going for the Minutemen story line now.

Nothing wrong? There is no reactivity in this game -- your choices mean squat. Of course, there is something wrong.


Just comparing the game to Fallout 1, the differences can be seen, in New Vegas as well. Everything in New Vegas is dependent upon your choices.

I agree with that. I rather Bethesda sticks to what they're good at than turn this game into something it wasn't. After my first playthrough of this game I was hugely disappointing how the game was lacking something. I could never really say but as you said is what its lacking and what's hurting it.

I also find it strange many people can defend Bethesda's first two DLC acting like it really improves to the game and adds on to it. If building robots and new workshop tools is what many look forward too what does that tell us about the future of gaming? We use to look forward to story dlc that added hours of fresh new gameplay to a game not cheap gimmicks that replace companions or add a few more eye pleasing stuff around settlements.

They are almost non existant....list some.

And this is the problem. You actively refuse to see any other viewpoint besides your own. You're stuck on the bandwagon of "Nah they're actually bad" but do little to actively explain why the mechanics are bad. I've explained every point of why the previous mechanics were indeed flawed and bad but you just go "Nope it's shallow because I said so" with your fingers in your ears.

Fine ride the bandwagon, but actually bother to give valid reasons instead of just shoving your head in the sand because at this point that's all you're doing.

Like I said, mechanically there is nothing wrong with Fallout 4's rpg mechanics and this is coming from someone who has spent a good majority of their time playing RPG that range from shallow mechanics to complex mechanics.


Except we never actually see much of a development in New Vegas based on our choices, all our choices are shown in an exposition dump whereas in 4 we actively see them take place.

Pshhh, back in Morrowinds day, Bethesda released DLC for free. I suppose 750 million dollars from Fallout 4 just wasn't enough. At the very least they could stop charging us full price for bug ridden games. After more than 15 years, I'm about done with that.


I use to think it was because their games were so massive, but I was wrong.

Than give some valid reasons and tell us why they are good.

I don't need to give an explanation, the game's bad RPG mechanics speak for themselves. I'm not "following a bandwagon", that's what I legitimately feel. I also legitimately feel that if you honestly thing Fallout 4's RPG mechanics are good then you haven't played many good RPGs. You haven't provided a good, valid reason as to why Fallout 4's RPG mechanics are good and you honestly won't really be able to because there are no good, valid reasons. Fallout 4 isn't a good RPG.

The only one who's sticking your fingers in your ears and putting your head in the sand here is you. You're the one who's actively ignoring the massive amount of negative criticism towards Fallout 4's RPG mechanics.

Not true at all. Everything you do has a visual impact from ransacking goodsprings to shooting house to screwing over Caesar on his deathbed. The ending slides are an exposition on the things you've done and offer insight into the outcomes and consequences to your choices, but in no way do they replace the visual impact those choices have in the game.

Okay, tbh I can see a valid case for Fallout 4 not having dialog or quests as good as New Vegas or even 3, but in terms of mechanics like the character system, combat, or crafting, it's leagues ahead of its predecessors and many, many other action RPGs.

And I think Cider's already made a solid case for the reactivity in this game - we can turn the Commonwealth into a thriving community with the settlement mechanics, we can actually play after the main questline and see the effects of our choices. The world is way more dynamic, and we have more control over how it changes.

Okay this is really circular logic.

Now in my opinion is Fallout 4 is excellent, but it could be a tad better that's all I'm saying.