Homeopathic game design? That's a new one.

And remember that crazy pills should always be taken orally.

Oh..

its funny how technical and financial limitations of the 90s became to be regarded as 'core values' in 2010s.

same thing happened with the Zelda series, and many other games, where voices weren't used for saving money and / or space on the disc / cartridge, and because people got used to that, these became 'values'.

You're making a generalization of the fan base. Most of them that are aware are either like me who are more open minded about it or like you who are set in their ways. How exactly is it a spit into fallout fan's faces though? Maybe they are watering down the game but maybe the aren't, you can make a judgement now but what they showed at e3 was very little. The game might have many redeeming qualities for all you know. I'm not gonna change your mind but maybe someone else will read our argument and see a little of both sides.

Ugh. I only like the customization.

But you can't build a house on top of a base that doesn't work.

And that base is RPG. RPG elements that are slowly dying over the years and being replaced by ''shoot and don't think'' that everybody seems to love.

Because thinking is for stupid people, yeah?

By Fallout fans I obviously meant people who started with Fallout 1, loved it, played 2, loved it more or less than 1. Do you know what was the main part of those games? Deep, mature dialogues where the player was in control. Do you know what Bethesda has clearly done? Took that and threw it out of the window for the sake of directed cinematic experience. Yes, I can judge the game solely on the basis of that.

Their thought: BUT IT'S FUN TO SHOOT!

Well we all have our own opinions, still hope you try it when it comes out. Rent it or just watch game play, it may be what you expect or it may have elements of what you think a fallout game should have.

Role-playing limitations.

Fallout originally didn't have that, did it?

Not in the way that we think no, and not as severe seeming as fallout 4 appears to be. In fallout you are a vault dweller and in the end you can't go back to the vault. Fallout 2 you are a tribal from a village based off of the original fallout protagonist. In fallout tactics you are a tribal, the only that really had no limitations on where you come from unless i'm wrong on that. Fallout 3 you are from the vault and you know your dad, that your mom died, and other people know who you are from your parents past. In fallout new vegas you are the courier and you helped start the town of hopeville and also helped end it. Fallout 4 you are from pre war times i assume was frozen through a cryogenic process, you have a spouse and child and for the first time have a player voice.

I see where the limitations become more specific but they have always been there, in truth you are never supposed to be the same character you are always supposed to be someone different. This is Bethesdas first trial run of voiced characters, all Bethesda games from now on will most likely have it or they will stop it after fallout 4 and wait for technology that allows the game to take voice samples and allow selections to be read in that voice. How ever fallout is going to change, if it fails here it fails here and they'll try something new or try something old but if the game gets good reviews from the public and sells well that's all there is too it.

More accessible than Fallout 3, but not necessarily less of an RPG. If anything it's more of an RPG, because it seems like you can have distinctly different games based on how you allocate your SPECIAL points. If I decide to go the NERD route and put a lot of points into intelligence and take the science perks that gives me access to better weapons and better crafting options. So It seems like I can actually build things that a scientist would build instead of just being able to unlock terminals.

Mad Scientist!:

http://i.imgur.com/HWZcUO0.jpg

Same thing with Charisma. I'm sure that will affect your ability to motivate people and merchants to stay in your town and help build it up. Who knows what else that attribute will affect.

So, I love it. Specializing actually means something now.

Exactly what I'm thinking. I'm really hoping that the apparent lack of skills and such just means more diversified builds. In Fallout 3, I usually ended up playing the same way, just with different weapons (What ever I put skill points in to)

Yeah, it's like why bother to put points into intelligence/science if it really doesn't impact the game all that much. I can definitely see a Quinn Mallory build in my future.

I really wish they would show how this new ranking system works.

I tended to start with guns and then move into energy weapons and heavy at higher levels.

It has become more dynamic,and we will have diffrent dialogue options.

Gun play is good.

Crafting system is amazing.

Grafics look next gen.

Power armor is badass.

And the coolest thing (for me) that we will have kill animations for diffrent enemies (that deathclaw scene).

Oh yeah and we don't know anything (just rumours and speculations) of the story so no panic.

It's crazy that all the crying is starting already. Seriously, because Beth didn't go into detail people think the game is stripped of stuff that's a given to be in the game. People crying over the dialogue we saw in the conference, get a grip people.

I would say it is going to be primarily a sandbox game, then an exploration game, then a shooter, then an rpg. Since they mentioned so little about character dev., npc's, quests and whatnot; I am wondering how much work went toward innovating beyond F3 and Skyrim in the rpg department. The freedom of a sandbox could make it a stronger rpg, or it could make it more like the Sims or Minecraft. We will just have to wait and see.

But at the very least it looks like it will be a great exploration/sandbox game. If the rpg/story elements are good, that's just a plus.

Which won't be used, this is clearly based off of The Walking Dead's dialogue system, and seriously what an inelegant design if we have to press shoulder buttons in dialogue (which we won't).

How do you know that did you played the game ?

It's confirmed that certain modifications will be unlocked only after you receive certain science perks. Those perks probably won't be open to you if you have a low intelligence. Gun modifications are unlocked using the "Gun Nut" perk. Now if "Gun Nut" is tied to Perception or Agility then you would have a big choice on your hands because you might not be able to put enough points into both. It all depends on what you want for your build.

I've just seen someone play it FFS, did you forget to look at the screen?

No i didn't, but you are taking conclusions way to fast.

50 % of the game is (un)confirmed so it's to early to take conclusions yet.

We have seen like 10-15 minutes of gameplay and you guys are flipping out already.

LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME! I'm Mr. MeSeeks and I'm going to explain how the dialogue will actually be better and give more role playing options - if they do it right:

It's not just you - it's information architecture. It's how humans prefer to digest information - by categorizing information into segments that can be navigated one by one. And if they do it right, they've actually improved the game by simplifying dialogue options (keep reading, trust me).

Let's not forget that the reason why F3 and FNV had so many options was because at any given point, they gave you all the options at once. You can answer politely at first, then give a rude remark on the next phase - not very logical when it comes to role-playing. So let's say that for any given phase of dialogue, there are 7 choices - pretty good right? Not quite.

Let's take F3 for example with an interaction between you and Moira. The way most of her conversations played was giving you two phases of dialogue: 1) Answering did you complete the task yet, 2) Giving your insight on the task. The two phases were nearly identical an options in terms of role-playing i.e. each phase had a rude answer, a nice answer, a smart, snarky, tough answer. So many of these options were actually fillers when it comes to role playing. For example, if you're character is nice an answers the first phase politely, the rude answer in the second phase is useless. What if they assumed you wanted to be nice and automatically replaced that rude dialogue with another more nuanced nice option?

What I'm talking is conversation branches and they can greatly expand the possibilities of dialogue without bloating each "phase" of conversation to have 12 different options. Let's say that for any given conversation, you're given 4 radically different ways to respond in the first interaction: 1) rude, 2) nice, 3) general, and 4) threatening. Then, in the next phase, your options hone in on how you responded in the first phase. If you were talking to a parent wanting their child saved, maybe you respond rudely at first. Then in the next phase, you could say it's because you don't have time, or that you "guess you could save them" or that they need to make it worth your while. Now expand this to all 4 types of responses. You could easily end up with a conversation that has, 10, 12, maybe even 20 different outcomes. That's a lot more than any conversation in F3 or FNV. Heck, even F1 and F2 for that matter.