I never suggested that your age meant that you thought 'six is the only mature thing'. I was just jumping off of a comment another poster had made, about how so-called "mature" themes aren't necessarily needed to make a fictional story mature. However, what about stories where six, drugs, and swearing are not even important to the plot itself or the characters? I can think of several animated family films that are quite mature when you look at the message behind the content. But, this is just part of a larger conversation, not attacking individuals based on their own opinions.

It really is more then just peripheral vision. We don't realize how much we use all our senses in the real world. That is why I do not mind third person, it makes up for losing the sense of smell, sound and feel. I just don't think being in 1st person makes a game more realistic, well not until they can come up with a true virtual reality I/F.

By the way i do play in 1st person in FO 4,

So you are 18? Well you seem very mature for that age, and i commend that. I would just like to say that what you find to be the greatest thing ever now might not be the same thing in 7 years when you are 25, or 12 years when you are 30. We change alot in our twenties, i know i did.

I meant Fallout game world separately. Not game worlds in general. I could also name a lot books, games or movies where six, drugs and strong language dont play any role and remain much more mature than the ones that have them included but like you said, its not the thread to do it. We are talking about Fallout. And bad writing.

Well I am 60+ and I still think six ROCKS Ok that was not very mature of me LOL

The ugly truth is that the Fallout mood, aesthetic, and theme is going to change with the writers, the company that owns it, and the times. There is very little about Fallout that *must* be a given way in order for it to still be Fallout. My experience with Fallout is actually a little different from other RPG series. Usually I'm an old fart, who's been there since game 1 back in 19something or other and I lament how far things have fallen with newer iterations of some series I loved when I was younger. But with Fallout, I've never played Black Isle's Fallout games even though I *love* Black Isle and played all their other games. So for me, my Fallout experience begins and ends with Bethesda's vision for the series. And I've had a lot of fun with Bethesda's vision of the series. Bethesda is the reason I finally bought Fallout 1&2 and intend to go play them. They must be doing something right.

Because they manage to attract you does not automatically mean they are doing something right

Best is you play Fallout 1 and 2 as you say you own them and then tell your conclusion as the change of the soul of the series is what we are talking bout here. Maybe it does not change you mind, but it might help to understand why some people turn a bit into angry video nerds cause of all this

so Fallout 1 and 2 have more 'soul' than the games that Bethesda and Obsidian made?

-no open world

the first area of Fallout 1 is mainly a small grey square with brown dots on it, that are supposed to be mole rats... and all you do the first twenty minutes, is click on those mole rats and kill them, while watching the same animations and sounds over and over... and that's supposed to be fun?

-no voiced NPCs

the main reason why they may had better dialogues and more choices throughout the game... you don't have to record anything... you can write as many lines as you want, and your files barely get bigger. Can you even imagine how much more work it is, to actually record a voice for the dialogue and how much harder it is to present decisions in a 3d open world game, compared to the 2d game we had in 1997?

-clunky UI

that's one of the things, I think they may be able to have done better even in 1997... we already see so many people complaining about how some settlement mechanics features are hard to figure out, but most people don't even know how weird the UI has been in the old games. You even had to drag the money from the traders from their inventory into the trade window all by yourself.

I'm all in for feeling nostalgic about old games, but please don't forget how much harder it is to develop a game nowadays and how much more features and mechanics there are.

Fallout 1 and 2 are as outdated as it gets, compared to the games we have today.

"soul" has literally nothing to do with any of the things you posted.

And the "soul" of a game is for you the world graphics, voiced npc and the ui? You should debug your interpretation.

You should really think a bit more deep before posting such things.

The "soul" is what the player feels while he plays the game, the experience the developers wanted to deliver - this concludes of all the gameplay components working together.

Btw: The first area in Fallout 4 is sanctuary hills where i sit the first 30 minutes of the game dismantling scrap over and over again. And when i move too much north i hit the border.....of the open world.

And if the trade for voiced actors is about 80% less conversation material and option then.....can i exchange that back please? I don′t really feel the need someone else talking for my character.

And clunky UI is something Bethesda gets better in while they merge console and pc games.....same action requires suddenly different keys and so on.

Please stop argumenting like that

Why do people expect good storyline in a Beth game in the first place? Skyrim's story is terrible and most of the sidequests are pretty boring. The quests in FO4 are more intereseting and funny like the USS Constitution and Silver Shroud. What I find is a let down is not as much quests as Skyrim and less settlement. I think the city building aspects kinda hurt the random settlements we can find like in Skyrim. Anyway, the story is a big improvement over Skyrim and the characters are more three dimensional now. The story is still svck but at least people have more expectation for the story now, I'm pretty indifferent about Skyrim story in general.

the soul of a game has a lot to do with its presentation, in my opinion

how much you can immerse yourself while playing it

wandering in a 3d world full of details, seeing the characters face to face and actually hear their voice, feels way more immersive for me

Fallout 1 on the other hand just feels like an interactive book

You're actually entirely incorrect.

The first Fallout game I played was New Vegas. The writing blew me away. I came from series like Mass Effect and Dragon Age, where writing mattered to me. So when I learned about this world where the Caesar's Legion was recreated after centuries from someone heavily inspired to do it, and the New California Republic I just fell in love.

Multiple endings with over 150+ slides. Absolutely beautiful.

Fallout 3 and 4 have nothing on New Vegas except for a better world. And even that's subjective.

"You can't be president." "Why not?" "Because you weren't elected!" - Fallout 3

I laughed out loud

If you can immerse yourself only through graphics and audio then I feel sorry for you.

I at the very least expected them to grow up and learn how to write a story 2015, but alas I was disappointed.

the way you try to read wrong things out of my posts, show that there are no arguments for the old games

while still being fun as a nostalgic experience, they're terribly outdated and aged compared to the new Fallouts

A young woman finds herself in a strange land and kills the first person she runs into. She hooks up with three friends and kills again.

(Summary of The Wizard of Oz)

I do too. Not every thing they produce, but DA:O remains one of my all time favorite games and I love the Mass Effect trilogy.

Here, here!

He's not entirely wrong, actually.

It turns out you can make Fallout 4 instantly "feel" more like the original games by doing this:

http://imgur.com/a/ODV3U

(One really nice touch to pay attention to: the first three screenshots using the Power Armor HUD is a great effect. The outline of the HUD is reminiscent of the UI in the original Fallout games, in Black Isle's games, and other party-based isometric games)

So a little bit of genre theory, here. The associations we make with a "feel" are not always obvious and direct. We encode a lot of subtle signs - in literature, it's language structure, dominant metaphors, chapter length and structure, etc.... In film, it's lighting, camera angles, length of cuts, etc... I don't know of any genre theory studies in video games, but I think we can already see that part of the feel is in camera angle. And just looking at those screenshots, some of us are already thinking turn-based strategy, which of course is part of the original Fallout's "feel."

There's a reason why successfully crossing genres is actually quite hard, and when it "works," it's a big deal. You can't just swap over the obvious things and call it done. Anyone read Calvin and Hobbes? When he goes Tracer Bullet, it's not *just* the language change, it's not *just* the costume change, and it's not *just* the lighting change. When you talk about the soul being "what the player (audience) feels," you have to recognize that switching to first-person is already altering that. So is turning the game from a series of static maps to an open world and adding in more voice-acting. These are actually part of "what the player feels."

Nah, I got the message loud and clear. For you older games don't cut it, solely because they're outdated. And that's exactly why I said I felt sorry for you as you're never gonna be able to enjoy amazing games like Planescape: Torment, BG 1 & 2, NWN, System Shock etc just because they're old.

No disagreement on what you said. They are "part" of it, plain and simple, but if what he said was true, then every game that comes out in 2k15 and has semi-decent technical characteristics is automatically better than any game that came out pre 2k. Just suggesting something like that is ludicrous.

I don't think that's what he meant. I think he meant that newer games have a headstart due to technical advancements. And, uh, I agree with that. Older games can definitely catch up in other areas (System Shock 2, anyone? Still creepy. Especially if you run the unpatched version and everything goes at like 200x speed). But I do think newer games have an easier go at immersion in a lot of ways.

If that's not what he meant then he has a poor way of expressing himself, literally all the things he posted to prove the first 2 fallouts had no soul were technical characteristics. Also System Shock 2 still creepy AF idd, SHODAN gave me nightmares when I first played it as a kid.

I'd argue that a lot of the writing in Fallout 4 is of the best quality the serieshas ever gotten.

One ending compared to the 150+ slides of New Vegas is just laziness.

Sorry, but - also a great lover of BioWare games - I think you are in a teeny-tiny minority. I think the rest of the FO4 population is split heavily between Fallout By Interplay Fans and Bethesda Moddable Open World Fans.

Multiplied by the standard Internet Forum Exaggeration Factor, and you don't count.

Sorry, but I don't see the part where I said I cared about being a minority or not.

If you could quote me on it, that'd be cool.

EDIT: And that's simply untrue. The community is also split between Behtesda fans and Obsidian fans just because of how good of an RPG New Vegas was.