Not an accurate source at all.

The choices and stat driven character progression are still there. Granted, you're still left with an all-roads meet, jack of all trades character at the end of the game, but the importance of your perks and stats in 80% of the game will determine the difficulty curve.

I actually agree with you that theres plenty of good stuff here. But, theres also a lot of things that, at least for me, are very, very disapointing. For example, several times you face dialogue options that appears to be really important, but they actually lead to the same immediate response. Like when you are with Piper and the mayor of Diamond city and she asks you about freedom of the press. It doesnt really matters which choice you answer, the mayor will say the exact same thing for all of them.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words...

http://i.imgur.com/hEWCLbd.jpg

So... what can change the nature of an rpg...

The thing that really grinds my gears about Bethesda's 'Fallout' though is the part where they cater too heavily to the people who don't want to specialize (i.e. ROLE PLAY) and want to be able to do all things, all the time. And the other major bummer, is the mostly vacant choices and consequences. Even little things like being rude to Thomas Moore in Fallout 2 give so much flavor to the meaningfulness of your character's choices. In Fallout 3 you can friggin' blow Megaton up, turn Moira into a [censored] ghoul, and still buy [censored] from her.

Why is Viggo Mortensen in Fallout 5? WHY!? Oh its from The Road, great movie btw. And that picture takes tings out of context as every picture does these days.

I see three choices at the top, 2 of which do not really effect anything storywise or combat wise (i mean, depending on choices in that quest, there is a different perk, but it is a small bonus, and not one that matters tons)

Second picture has 4 dialogue options, a yes, no, and quesion asking about the world to explain it better.

also, picture is not quite relavant anyway, as the two pictures represent two different parts of a game, one is accepting or denying a quest, another is talking in the middel of a quest and talking about it.

The only difference I see is imagination. No matter what you choose, Moira still laughs it off and you get some XP. Still, FO4 dialogue could be improved, and is probably the weakest area right now.

Witcher 3 - http://orcz.com/images/thumb/1/11/Witcher3Dialog.jpg/500px-Witcher3Dialog.jpg

Reductionist as all hell. Cherry-picking, completely ignores context, and the fact that our characters still say full sentences.

Oh, people are gonna hate me for saying this. But is it so great for a game to track every little thing you do, and create a consequence for it later on? I want to feel the effects of major decisions, and you still do, but I don't want to go through every dialog option being paranoid about whether or not this guy is going to refuse services to me with no warning because I decided to be a [censored], or something awful will happen to me down the line for it. Sometimes it feels nice to just play a character, and not have to worry about creating the most "ideal" circumstances for that character with everything they do.

There are somethings in Fallout 4 I disagree with. Most of these can be classed under the "streamlined" category. However, one thing is for sure: gamesas is selling more games as a result, and that's perfectly fine with me because I'm still enjoying them nonetheless, streamlined and all. Also, developers who make games that sell well will often ... make more games in the future, and that's a good thing

And it's how Skyrim and Oblivion were made too.

Viggo is cast for FO5 didn't you know The Road was a great movie btw.

But seriously now, it doesn't. What I mean to say is that the "rpg" term (and aspect) will be getting more and more "abstract" in Bethesda's fallout. The point is, what we had, what we have now, what we lost and what could have been done.

There is a scrolling bar - the choices are 6. And yes choices are there if you have the stats. Which makes you feel you are the character you built. And it doesn't have to "matter a ton". If it doesn't matter a ton, we throw it out of the game? FO3 was the weakest in that aspect but it still had retained these elements. I loved its map though. FNV was a step towards the right direction in terms of RP. FO4 could have taken the best of both worlds.

Yeah, the only thing that picture really does is highlight that hiding information behind paraphrased options is poor design. I'm running a mod which expands the dialogue so I can see what I am going to say, though. Perks of playing on PC I guess.

It's not as bad in Fallout 4. Try threatening/robbing Trashcan Carla and see whether she'll open up trade with you in the future. Factions in this game will outright hate you for certain decisions made in the middle of game. Companions will also turn on you depending on certain choices. Or keep feeding Mama Murphy drugs and she'll eventually die, but she can also give you a certain tip which will help you completely bypass a boss in the story (as someone that used Gunther and Anna Navarre's kill codes in Deus Ex, this was a nice touch to see).

If anything, despite the obviously limited nature of the voiced dialogue, I can still see there are choices and actions with repercussions. I certainly would have liked to have seen more skill checks / perk checks tied into dialogue, but nonetheless there are still choices and actions that can gate character's off from certain things.

[Shove Djikstra aside]

God [censored] that quest.

They should fire that guy. Or make him stop writing that kind of opinion based drivel.

Reel him in a bit and have him add more fact instead of lies by omission and over exaggeration.

Basically if you make an accusation of X isn't in the game! Then you better make sure that X isn't in the game and you aren't talking out of your headhole.

The definition of RPG is if you can roleplay a character. You can roleplay in Fallout 4.

Fallout Tactics has traits, skills, perks and tagged skills and no voiced protagonist but no one would even begin to classify it as an RPG.

And has everyone forgotten how F1 and 2 played?

Most of the time was spent shooting and the option to use speech checks and other noncombat skills to diffuse hostile situations were not as frequent as some seem to misremember.

Still awesome though, freaking loved it and am missing that stuff in F4.

I don't think its that -- in the past 10-15 years (if not longer) there's been no respectable evolution happening in almost any genre (technical aspects aside). It's more about genre mixing and feature creep. The mainstream doesn't really like RPG's for what they are, "slow" and "cumbersome" and "complex" (by comparison to action or "easygoing" games, that the mainstream loves), but they seem to like some of the trappings as long as they don't interfere with the gameplay like they would in an RPG. Character progression is fun up until it starts to actually do what it says instead of being this sort of minor backhanded stacking of symbolic numbers more to be viewed than thought of. And they seem to like calling things "RPG's" for some reason - possibly due to it reminding them that there are some trappings there that tell the gameplay might be a bit more varied than if it was not called an "RPG" - and hence there are certain forms of character progression seeping in almost all games. It's all really confusing to look at and nobody knows what is what anymore.

The RPG genre is still there as it was, though. Not overused due to the market being what it is, but feeling fine and waiting for those few companies that actually make that type of games to innovate.

You are right - who cares about SPECIAL/perk/skill enabling dialogue - right? Not like it's an RP element.

If you had bothered to read the rest of my post you would have seen that mentioned the lack of perk/skill dialogue being sorely missed. That picture is STILL a gross oversimplification. But, please, keep [censored] posting that picture even though it's a half in the bag, slippery slope.

I unfortunately have to agree with the article and the op, in fact I had entered this forum now just for posting the very same article. I'm playing the crap out of Fallout 4, but I sadly must admit that it is a really shallow rpg.

ps: I am EXTREMELY WORRIED about the direction that is going to be taken by bethesda for Elder scrolls VI. I'm almost sure they are going to scrap almost completely away the customizations and rpg elements.

Its an opinion piece...so he can write whatever he wants, and we, the readers, are free to agree or not with him. No need to fire anyone.

wrong, Tactis IS a RPG, more specifically a Tactical RPG, kind of like what D&D actually is when it comes down to it. Look it up, it is an ENTIRE type of RPG.

Also, freedom of the press exists for a reason, especially when it comes to opinion-based articles, like that one.

Also, you consider Call of duty a Roleplaying game? because if yo uactually believe that a RPG is only a RPG if you can roleplay, then you consider CAll of Duty an RPG because you can pretend to be a character in those games too.

the last part, about the original games, i do agree with thoough

Having the name in the genre title means little, you can label a diamond a turd, but its still a diamond. JRPG are simply a different form of games that really had no genre to identify with at first. They are simply of a linear narrative. You can call battlefield an RPG but that doesn't make it so. People "growing up" on JRPG's does not validate their standing as RPG's. In other words, popular belief does not = truth. Unless you are an idiot sheep who thinks simply giving a game a genre title makes it so.

um, sorry, but how can you say JRPGs are not RPGS, because fun fact, if the industry, and if nearly EVERYONE agrees something is something, then yes, that something is that thing. You know, like the Brontosaurus fiasco with dino's? yeah, IF the entire industry agrees on something, then yeah, a couple morons who believe otherwise have no voice and mean nothing

No one with half a brain is going to ACTUALLY say JRPGs are not RPGs, no one, they are RPGs.

Fair enough. I suppose part of my problem is that I hate Fallout 3 so much I just can't get that horrible taste out of my mouth, even though I'm well aware that I'm enjoying Fallout 4 and consider it: good for what it is. It's just that "what it is" doesn't feel like an RPG to me, much less a 'Fallout' game.

In terms of gameplay, Diablo has very little in common with Baldur's Gate, Ultima, or most (all?) of the old D&D games. And where did you get the idea that rogue-likes were based on tabletop games? Links that point this out in regard to any of the old ones like Rogue or Hack would be appreciated, though I don't think you can actually support that claim.

If you're talking early tabletop D&D, then you're talking tactical combat with roleplay sprinkled on top, which is the opposite of hack and slash. Later D&D might have been more about dungeon delving and slaughter in popular use, but still had a complex system of rules in addition to roleplay. But in terms of computer games, hack and slash generally equates to button mashing, which again has nothing in common with RPGs (and is actually the opposite) except for a marketing label.

A game can be a great game and not be an RPG. I just don't like terms being watered down or misused, though as I admitted before, I'm on the losing side of the battle.

Tedious is a word I often see thrown at traditional RPGs.

But as to your last sentence: Indeed. The absence of Kevin Saunders has me a little worried, but I still expect TToN to be very innovative.