Not really. They improved the shooting aspects, gave us better crafting, etc. Are there aspects of the games I'd like them to bring back? Of course. I actually really liked having to repair weapons, as weird as that might sound.

Sure did.

If in some form Call of Duty's shooting mechanics were integrated into FO4, it would be a good thing. It would be a vast improvement over the shooting in previous games. That doesn't mean they need to take Call of Duty's "Oh Hi, I shot first you're dead in two bullets to the knee" mechanics. There's much more to shooting than that.

It's a game with guns. Shooting will tend to be much more improved, and action-y as the series develops. RPG or not.

Sounds like a shooter with some RPG elements tacked on, more like.

What puzzles me is why do they keep all these systems if they clearly are in the way of their desired design; doing as little as possible with them so as to not interfere with they actually seem to want. Rather than taking an actual advantage of them and what they stand for in the context and building up their design around that. Like giving a hint of rope to the RPG crowd, but just not enough for them to ever get a good grip of.

Since Arena. All of the Elder Scrolls games are hybrid action/roleplaying games.

Plot twist: FO4 wakes up one morning and realizes it's been Call of Dooty all this time.

I've never understood why ANYONE would be worried about improved combat...making something better is always better...amriteguys?

Well of course they focused on improving shooting mechanics, that was one of the worst parts of Fallout 3. People act like they are just now putting this in the game, it has been in for the last two games they are just refining and improving it. I don't think any of this is going to make Fallout 4 like a Call of Duty game at all. It is still very much an action-rpg.

Throw in a few explosion and Megan Fox's booty and we got a Michael Bay movie.

Ah, well, one man's 'better' is another man's 'worse'. Bethesda may have made it a better shooter, a better action RPG, but a worse pure RPG.

Doesn't mean Bethesda's wrong, doesn't mean it won't be a great game. But it might be less of what some people want, and more of what they don't. So, for them... worse

I really don't buy this anolysis, even if elements of it may be true.

An action RPG is enhanced by accurate shooting mechanics - in Fallout 3 shooting accurately was like hammering a nail with a banana.

Bethesda was motivated to improve the 'action' because it was a weaker element of the game.

There is no evidence that dialogue has been toned down, we have one 15 minute example.

Streamlining skills is not a bad thing, many skills (lockpicking, science etc) only had meaning at: 25/50/75/100 in any case.

I have no interest in 'Call of Dooty', but the combination of action RPG I've seen demo'd has me pumped

and looks to be a significant improvement in the already good Fallout 3.

New Coke.

Just because they say it's better, doesn't mean it is.

This, fallout NV had much better weapon handling than 3 and it introduces weapon mods. Its also an better RPG. Yes it has other weaknesses compared with 3 but that is irrelevant.

Fallout 4 expand on this.

Huh.. Look, BGS is going to be doing things differently in many ways this go round. Weapon usage was pretty wonky back in the FO3 and NV years. Game crafting has advanced substantially, at least from the mechanics end since then. It's been, what, 5-7 years since they last opened the door to the wasteland? ( Even now some are disappointed with the look of the new game. )

I think they learned with Skyrim, that having a system that allows you to improve your skills by actually using them, created a much better synergy between the PC and gamer within. To do that also requires weapon mechanics to "feel" and "look" real. that's where PC connectivity with the gamer comes in, and hopefully solidifies the reason and emotion behind what it all means. This is where the devs efforts are focused, but whether they have succeeded or not remains to be seen. Keep an open mind, and you might appreciate what has been accomplished, even if it's not what you might have expected or hoped for.

That may be the majority of what they have shown, but they have only shownn a VERY small amount of the game.

The filthy casuals strike again.

I find this 'action RPG' vs 'pure RPG' debate a bit silly to be honest.

Mechanics that allowed for more open RPG were largely illusory, since the days of pencil and paper at least...

i like to point out you don't get help from ID software and hire one or two devs away from Bungie with goal in mind of not making the combat better i realy hope they remove hidden dice rolls from combat.

if this was turn based combat i would have zero issues with dice rolls.

i don't need the game too have me miss 3 times in row when im going for leg cripple on a yao gui /deathclaw just becuase dice said so

I don't think the rpg elements were ever considered the backbone of FO3. The combat is obviously important as you encounter hostiles everywhere you go, but I think the majority of Beth's vision for FO is the exploration/adventure aspect of the game. As for the op, don't think you could be more wrong. cOD is mostly designed for online play. What's the campaign take to finish, 4 hours or something? And as for the dialogue, I really don't get the idea its been simplified. You'll initially get 4 choices. That in itself is about as many as most encounters in FO3. But it may not end there. Each of those choices could have four more choices, and so on and so on. Having 4 initial choices hardly limits the conversation trees. Judging by how many lines of dialogue they recorded, sounds to me like the conversations will be more extensive than in other games

Silly? Perhaps. But, that said, some people just like the pure player-character-attributes driven games. And the further the Fallout games go from those, the less they like it, even if they still like the setting, questing, character building and all other trappings of what most people consider an RPG.

Trying to categorise subtly different styles of game may be a bit silly, but trying to put things into categories is just something people do. And knowing if a game fits into a category you know you like, or a category you know you don't like, is valuable.

For example, I have played and enjoyed a few strategy games. And I've played and hated one or two others. And I know that the ones I hated would be put by most people into the arbitrary category of 'real-time' strategy, and the ones I liked would be considered 'turn-based' strategy. And those categories do, for me, tell me something useful about the fundamental nature of the game, and whether I'm likely to enjoy it.

Similarly with the different varieties of RPG. For some people with strong likes and dislikes it really does matter - and life's too short and money too tight to try every single game and decide if, on balance, you're glad you bought it. That's why we have reviewers, and categories like 'action' RPG and 'pure' or 'turn-based' RPG, as quick 'this RPG is like these others' flags. Misleading at times, yes. But often useful.

Since Arena actually. Bethesda has never made an rpg that wasn't an action-rpg for as long as they've been in business as far as I know.

Fallout 3 did the hidden dice rolls well. Try to use an pistol then fresh out of the vault, bullets fly everywhere, I actually inspected my setup, wondered if I used wrong ammo for the gun or something At very high level you get aim assist to help you, your caracter is better at shooting than you

I don't know. I sort of like when the hits are based upon skill and armor worn and chance and you can see those things at work. Yes, it makes for clunky looking combat, most especially in first person, but it just raises my awareness of why my skills and level and experience really matter.

But then for me, RPG really does mean a roll of the dice and numbers and stats and all that stuff. I sort of miss some of that and would happily give up the better visuals for that sense that my build and stats matter.

I also know that I'm rather alone in this and thus try not to be resistant to the change despite my personal wants. But, yeah, Morrowind combat was fine with me.

Shesh

Seriously a Game with over 400 hours of gameplay is not something for anyone whos casual about games.

That and honestly you dont realise that Todds STILL trolling you guys over there because it worked so well last time when you guys went Rabid over things, you guys probably boosted there profits by 20% or so. Because honestly I cant see anyone who played since oblivion being this fussy about how Bethesda does things.

I didn't say I wanted the game to be more like call of duty but to take gun mechanics how they shoot, sound, feel, look, etc. This literally has nothing to do with RPG elements, it's improving the basics of the gunplay mechanics. Which is always a good thing, since you know, Fallout is majorily played with projectile weapons.

I find it somewhat strange that when they say they've worked hard to improve something that was widely criticised in the previous games, some people think that is bad.

Another thing I find odd is that some people seem to think that this game should be a "traditional" or "pure" RPG, when Bethesda clearly do not make that type of game. Call them Action-RPGs if you like, as there is clearly a great deal of focus on the "action" component (I call them Bethesda Action Roleplaying Fantasies ), but they're certainly not stat-heavy traditional RPGs.

I don't really want to debate the definition of "RPG", but to many people an RPG is simply a game where you can play a "role", and to whom the aesthetic appearance of their character is as important as their stats.

As for Character Vs Player skill, I don't think that shooting accuracy affected by random number generation has any place in such an action-orientated game; it's just irritating. Giving the sights/cross-hair a varying amount of "wobble" seems like a more appropriate solution for the style of game.