Yes companions are done well, all the factions in conflict also look nice but has not come so far.

However in FO3 you tend to have multiple branching of quests, my main gripe is the lack of backstory for the various quests. Again caused by the dialogue system.

The RPG argument is pointless. not because the Article is not right, it is but because people who just know "RPGs" from computer games don't know what a RPG is. P&P is real RPG and even there you have the Gamism Players who just build their Character the most effective way to perform good in fighting situations. The point is that those kind of people are the P&P Cancer if you want to make real RP. You can ask everyone who was a game master and tried to build a world with characters and story. Gamism Players and Roleplayers can only coexist in a Roleplay Session if both of them get enough room to play the game like they want but in reality it is better for both if everyone plays their own game and now I get to the point.

We are talking about Fallout here. Fallout 1 and 2 where RPGs. One of the best computer RPGs ever made. You could beat those games without a single shot of your gun. You could talk or even [censored] yourself through the whole game. You could solve each problem mulitple ways. There where no corridors full with NPCs wich only purpose is to get killed. You people are arguing that "every game is build like that" but you're wrong. Maybe the games YOU play are build like that. Fallout 1 and 2 where Narrativism RPGs.

So we had this beautiful RPG and than Bethesda came....

They released Fallout 3 wich was an awesome game, but NOT Fallout and not Narrativism wich was the main reason why RPG fans loved FO so much. You can argue as much as you want but Fallout 3 from an Narrativism RPG standpoint was garbage compared to FO1 and 2. As I mentioned, it still was an awesome game and I played the [censored] out of it, but it was not Fallout anymore. The change from Narrativism to Gamism was the main reason for all the hate FO3 got. You can say about the NMA Community what you want, but they are Narrativism fanatics and FO3 was a slap in the face to them.

Then FONV was born. This game was a huge step in the right direction. It still was far away from the quality of 1&2 but it was much better than FO3. So you could argue that the "oldschool" FO1&2 players should have known that Beth will not go back to the roots with 4 but they had new hope because of FONV.

And then FO4 was created... well. I have 130h played so again, I like the game but Beth learned exactly nothing of NV. Its more gamism and less Narrativism than ever.

So we RPG fans have to accept reality. Narrativism does not sell as good as Gamism and that won't change. It changed with the Fallout Franchise by the takeover of Bethesda and it even changed in TES if you compare Morrowind to Oblivion or Skyrim. For us, Fallout is over and theres nothing we can do about it. I have the luck that I still like this kind of game so I can still play it but even for me there is a bad taste about it.

The article comment about being either a 'good guy or a sarcastic good guy' is exactly how I feel about the game, and it is the main thing I had hoped Beth would not go down. Ever since Fallout 3 I had wanted some sort of occupation-career aspect to be added to Fallout. I wanted to be allowed to play as a smuggler, or join the slavers, or Talon mercs / gunners, but this did not happen.

Elder Scrolls does many things wrong but at least I can play as a thief or assassin and say to hell with the MQ hero story. I bet all our characters in FO4 are just different variants on the same theme.

As a fellow P&P player and master (lost thousands of hours in the 1990s immersed in games like Vampire: the Masquerade, AD&D, Paranoia and GURPS) and also as someone who played all Fallout and Elder Scrolls games (minus Arena), I totally agree with your post. I never thought how the old debate about Roleplayers and Gamism is fit to describe the current debate about the "evolution" of RPG games. You sir are spot on. I too like FO4, but hell do I miss the narrative experience of older games. I would say that this kind of game last appeared in titles like Morrowind and Vampire: the masquerade Bloodlines. I hope they can come back sometime in the future, just like isometric RPGs are coming back now with games like Pillars of Eternity.

Gothic 1 and Gothic 2 are often hailed as some of the best RPGs ever. They both had a fixed and fully voiced main character (AFAIK you couldn't even edit the character's six), no craftable armour or weapons, all armour was one piece only + helmet... That's not what makes a good RPG.

I dont get it really every place i look F3 was a bigger success that NV, and still (someone ppl) keep defending NV more.

And yeah Fo1 and Fo2 arnet the best RPG game ever made, Gothic have that tittle for a long long time

Yeah, but by that criteria almost every game ever made is a role playing game. Donkey Kong, you are playing the role of Mario, who has to save a princess. Pac Man, you play the role of Pac Man, who has to avoid ghosts and eat pills. etc etc. You play a role in every game (since every game isn't YOU personally - aside from chess and such maybe).

That's not how I have understood Role Playing Games, since I started playing my brothers D&D in 1981. Role Playing means you are free to choose what you want to be (from a list, maybe, but you have the choice), and then (and more importantly) PLAY it how you want to play it (within the rules). You had the freedom to do the unexpected, try your luck, throw your friend in front of the dragon and run away lol.

What games satisfy that criteria these days? Computer games can't offer the freedom that traditional RPGs can, they have to be scripted. They can be really cleverly scripted, but still.

Ultimately I think: who cares? I love FO4. I love Dragon Age. I love Deus Ex. They allow me to escape, to get involved and invested. There are two types of games these days. Games I love. And everything else lol

Why is truth so painful.

He just said why.

Except that character's personality or goals either weren't given or were given very vaguely. I don't think anyone is talking about looks of a character being the defining point. Neither is being voiced if done well. It's not done well (in terms of RP) in F4.

Curiously, I seem to remember the same phrase used to describe Skyrim back in 2011. And I've heard tales from gamers of old of it being applied to Oblivion as well. And Morrowind for "dumbing down" the system that was in Daggerfall.

For me, the game has its goods and bads, like any BGS game. Equipment modding is something they should look into keeping around. Modifying existing weapons and armor worked out a lot better than the crafting in Skyrim and managed to keep finding new loot a reality later in the game, when stuff with secondary effects became more common. Power armor has a second layer of depth with the fushion cores and can be upgraded in a number of ways, from simply improving its stats to jets lacks and paint jobs. I don't care much for the levelling system and I think that Bethesda should look to Fallout 3 rather than TES: 3, 4 & 5 and Fallout 4 for the next game(Almost Perfect notwithstanding).

The settlements that are not generic settling spots are generally too few for my taste and I feel I don't get enough chance to bother people about random trivia. Or to have people bother me with random trivia. Exploration feels less good than Skyrim, where I think the one in charge of dungeons had OCD or something about making at least something unique in each one.

On the other hand, the gameplay feels smoother and more natural when entering combat. Enemies seem to behave in ways that are more inclined towards self-preservation and seem hesitant to be baited out from a fortified position, being instead very happy to share their granades and molotovs with you should you try. Companions are average, but I would rather give a special shoutout to the "Lone Wanderer" perks. Nice touch, making it a choice to go alone or not.

The general low number of attributes you get at the start is a good thing, IMO. Forces certain choices a bit. That you have to choose a perk or attribute increase per level is also okay as far as such things go. All this goes to put more planning into how to level the character. And there are a decent amount of more "unique" perks, like Aquaboy, Gun Fu, Pain Train, Ghoulish, etc. Small flavors living alongside the Rifleman, Armorer and the like. But I do miss the skills quite a lot.

The visual redesign of some enemies(like the Mirelurk) is great, IMO. So is the introduction of certain new types and ranks of enemies, giving you something to fight even as new levels are reached. Layered armor where each piece if moddable is nice too. The various base clothes seem balanced, being generally not very powerful, but offering small favors in certain directions(sometimes a little extra protection, sometimes stat bonuses).

I enjoy Fallout 4, but it is not my favorite BGS game.

i know right, =P.

I agree with u isnt my favorite Bethesda game either, for me that game is still Morrowind.

For me Fallout 2 is still the best release of this franchise and Fallout: NV the second best.

F4 is more or less a decent game but after playing Witcher 3, GTA 5 and MSG: PP.... F4 does seem primitive and crude...

This truly translates my 20 hours in the game http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/11/20/fallout-4-review-bethesda-never-changes/

F4 could have been a great release back in 2009 but in 2015 it indeed seems like a primitive and unfinished game........

I think a lot of the issues people are having with the game will be resolved with player created mods.

This too describes my grievances with the game well

Don't consume yourselves in pointless discussion of what is an RPG and what isn't. The point is what was lost in this installment. What changed in FO4. And the above perfectly describe that. It may still be an RPG but it surely is a WORSE rpg than its predecessors.

If anyone disagrees with this, by simple deduction, that means he believes that the above elements which were lost (quest branching/choices, dialog choices/consequences, role playing different viable roles, more free and elaborate character development), are NOT indicative of an RPG. Sorry, but no matter how you define an RPG these elements are parts of its definition.

So u mean ME, DA and Witcher arent good RPG, bc they miss those part.

i mean most Witcher side quest are "go there, track that, kill it"

Same go for DA "go there, close rift, kill demons"

I don't know what sold more copies but thats not even my point.

What I said was that there are different kinds of RPGs. Normally they are mixed but for the sake of argument lets see it a little more black and white than it is in reality. And this is roleplaytheory, so its nothing I made up.

The RPG Types are:

Gamism - Its all about winning. Its about getting or making a character. choose skills and use them. Mostly its about running around, killing [censored] and getting more skills and equipment to kill bigger and stronger [censored].

Narrativism - You get thrown into a setting with a problem/quest and have to fix it. A big part of fixing the problem is, finding and choosing solutions to fix it. The point of this kind of RPG is freedom and Adventure. You get the adventure because of the problem you're faced with and the freedom because you can fix the problem in many different ways.

Simulationism - Thats the hardcoe kind of RPG. You get thrown into a setting. Period. So you create a character and you are what you want and can do what you want. You could be a barkeeper who does nothing but being a bar keeper. Thats some Ultima Online RP Shard stuff and even if it doesn't sound like something, its more fun than you could imagine.

My point was:

Fallout 1 and 2 where Narrativism RPGs and loved for that.

Fallout 3 and 4 are Gamism RPGs and loved for that by the masses and hated for that by the oldschool Fallout players.

FalloutNV was still Gamism but as I mentioned before... RPGs are normally a mix of those three elements and NV had more Narrativism put into without losing any fun for the Gamism playerbase. So New Vegas showed us Narrativism Players that it is possible for FO to comeback but FO4 in the end was more Gamism than any other FO title.

Thats the whole point of the discussion in all the threads. Most people just don't know the Roleplayingtheory and that this problem is as old as P&P. Even in D&D you had different kind of players who all where "Roleplayers". You had the one who build their "fighter" character just to get into battle and you had the ones who build their "Paladin" to play their role. The fighter player did not even create a story for is character, the paladin player wrote 20 sites of backstory. Do you see the difference now?

i didnt mean sell wise. For the general gamer comunity if u ask ppl what Fallout is they will speak more about 3 and NV. Hell from 10 of my friend problem 8 knows what Fallout 3 is, and probably 4 knows about NV.

I agree with you about the RPG Type for video games.

Like i said early or on another post, is been a LONG LONG time since i have play a RPG like Baldur Gate or Neverwinter. I mean ppl prize Witcher 3 for been a masterpiece of RPG and i think is gamism like u said.

Is more what u call gamism is what i call Action/rpg.

What really changed for me, especially coming on the heels of New Vegas, is the complete lack of soul. I've said it before but I kept holding onto hope that the game would get better and change my mind. Unfortunately though last night I finished the MQ and for a second I thought, well...still have plenty of map to check out! Followed immediately by the thought "Well what's the point, though? There's not been much point in exploring so far and I doubt that's going to change." Aside from, like the article says, a few green-screens with narrative or back-story this game just isn't very interesting. New Vegas had areas like Vault 11 or quests like 'Legend of the Star' which rewarded your exploration so much with rich storytelling and inspired area design. Fallout 4 isn't completely void of this, but it feels more like a DLC spread like butter over too much bread. And none of this can be solved by pointless, banol gimmicks like settlement building (seriously why does this even exist??).

Even Fallout 3 which I hate...even Fallout 3 didn't make me feel so listless. It's such a bummer too, because I feel like Bethesda did actually learn a few important things from Obsidian, but ultimately it's not enough.

Not if you're talking to Black Isle fans.

I haven't tried other factions yet but it seems quite blatantly obvious that there quests for different factions are radically different and lead to different outcomes? It seems surprising this hasn't been brought up, considering it wasn't present in F3, and in NV despite your chosen factions the quest line was almost entirely the SAME. I think Beth has put far more work into giving you alternate choices for your end game, however it's gone straight over most people who just chose one and didn't realise?

As a slight caveat to that, so far I'm loving how many of my decisions in game do not have dire consequences. I can shoot down BoS vertibirds and not compromise my ability to do their quests.

You might say well that makes it less of an rpg because choices don't have severe consequences. My response to that would be that this is a game, meant to fulfil my desires. In NV I would probably have not saved more the half of my entire playtime because these consequences were so restrictive it compromised my ability to enjoy the game.

Hats off to Beth I say, and it doesn't matter to me one iota what genre you classify the game as.

But u understand by the point of a Narrative story NV fail about making u explore??? if u fallowing the MQ on NV, u are always running from A to B bc of the War and how everyone is worrie about solving the issue of the dam. So as a story wise there is 0 point on exploring bc the MQ is always more important. That is one of the things i hate the most of NV, and it become worst when the DLC came out, bc going away from the NV areas feel event more disconnect from the main story.

No, pal, I don't and no amount of you following me around the forum quoting every post I make is going to change that. My experience does not fit your description. Once I hit Freeside the game opened up like a flower to me and had me all over the map in every direction.

Game make u running to deliver the chip from the star and dealing with that situation.

Ok.

It is an RPG whether you call it one or not.

Comparing RPG elements, dialogue systems and storytelling between Fallout 4 and Fallout 1, 2 or NV hurts my gaming hearth. I consider the newest installment as sandbox shooter, no way I could call it as an RPG. Especially a Fallout RPG...