I'm not sure what you mean by "take anologies in the spirit of their intent"? I thought the anology was fine.

OK, say the batter selects a hit for a critical after they know it's a hit. You're right, that would terrible. Is that how it's going to work? Or are we just assuming the worst possible implementation of the system to pass judgement on?

The only issue that I have with this is that the hardcoe RPG community selectively embraces games. The Witcher 3 is an RPG beloved by many of the people that hate the direction of Fallout 4. However, does that game fit the metric of an RPG that you're holding Fallout 4 to?

-Combat is almost entirely skill based

-Dialogue is not fully written out

-PC is voiced and not customizable

-Leveling system is perk based

-Nothing equivalent to a hardcoe mode

So that raises the question, was the Witcher 3 a bad RPG? Not at all, you'd be hard pressed to even find someone willing to call it a bad game. Our definition of an RPG is changing, and I believe Fallout 4 still falls under the category of one. This is coming from someone that isn't afraid to criticize Bethesda too.

It's not copying, it's inspiration. It's not because you're first at something you're automatically best at something. Red Dead Redemption wasn't the first western game but,...

To be quite honest, it felt more like just a story driven action adventure with good to excellent narrative design.

Much in the same way Nietzsche claimed "God is Dead", the same point can be applied to Fallout 4 that it's an open world shooter (doesn't have the same pith i'll admit).The minds of the masses is what matters, and if most people view Fallout 4 is an open world shooter it may as well be one.It's these people that ultimately dictates the future of AAA games.Much in the same way that it it's in the mind of the masses that god is dead as according to Nietzsche, as the notion of a God becomes irrelevant and evanescences from public cognizance.

Edit:

This is merely an anology not an attack on God.

I would agree if there were any way in which we could quantify what is genuinely believed by the minds of the masses. At present there is no way for sure for us to know how Fallout 4 is perceived by the majority, so I'll withhold from making that judgement at present.

Meh. Change 'open world shooter' to 'RPG' or 'potato' and the anology is equally valid.

Gameplay should ALWAYS trump stories? This is a video GAME. You could have the greatest story in the world but if the gameplay svcks then most people will get bored fast and move on.

What's the point in learning anything about it, if the ["RPG"] label has become a catch-all?


Can you prove that isometric is a regression?




It's just common for some to pick apart an anology for its own sake instead of the point [being argued] that it is trying to illuminate; as though finding a flaw in it could somehow disprove anything. anologies are but casting light on the subject, not propping it up; and so "take anologies in the spirit of their intent" usually means to understand how it applies to the concept, and what it's trying to point out.

Story and Gameplay ~in games, are quite like Story and artwork ~in comics. Really superb artwork will make up for a terrible story; but really terrible artwork will ruin even the most superb tale that it illustrates. Bad gameplay does this for games ~regardless of the strength of the narrative.

If you don't like it then don't play it. But keep your false accusations to yourself. Thanks.

An oldie, but a goodie
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y1wm7CFRCQ

I for one welcome better gunplay. The weapon handling in FO3 and new Vegas was clanky as sin.

Interesting http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Battle_Of_Who_Could_Care_Less_zpscc1ezgjt.png I'd never heard of the group before.

I'm on the fence about that. Generally weapon use either leans toward 'less clunky' or 'more RPG like'; where leaning towards one, necessarily leans away from the other. The clunkiness is usually the mechanics of the PC's ability with the weapon... This gets awkward in FPP, when the player starts actually aiming for the PC.
FO3 had vestigial RPG mechanics, that were used to interfere with the player's aim and damage... and that just comes off as weird in actual play; and allows for centered head shots that spurt blood, and yet need a dozen or more to drop the opponent ~who is unfazed, and actively shooting back at the PC..

It hasn't, its become at best a catch more, as I said, there should still be a base frame for each genre, but anything more is just restrictive of devs creativity, all to give a lazy time for consumers, when in honesty, in this day and age its not hard to gather the info needed to judge a game on its own.

Actually, in this day and age, most devs of AAA titles trickle bits of info to the public in controlled bursts. We only know what I assume to be some of the basics of gameplay, stats,and ui. We know only the premise of the main quest. So any judgements either for or against the game are ill-informed and are usually sprinkled with a fair amount of emotional reaction to things that have either pissed off the viewer or excited them.

It's best to talk about the game from an objective and unbiased standpoint instead of being pissy or excited about feature X or how "Muh it's not an arpeegee anymore muh because I said so."

I think the term 'RPG' is used as an "It's what you like! Trust us." marketing gimmick now, more than anything descriptive of the actual priorities of the game.

To the modern dev & gamer, I don't think there is much distinction between a game like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMPkCKgeguQ, and FO3, besides FO3's open world; and an open world, doesn't make or break an RPG.

*In case it's not clear, I consider this as generally bad.

It was the ending of their game that they decided to throw under the bus because people wanted post-ending gameplay. Don't try and talk down the significance of this comment. They abandonned the ending to their game because of the lure of DLC sales. Utterly despicable.

So the story does kind of break down. But you know what? We knew that, and were OK with it, because the trade-off is, well, you get these cool followers to join you. You meet up with Fawkes near the end of the game, and it's true you can go right with him to the purifier. So we could've not had him there as a follower, and that would've solved the problem of him not going into the purifier -- because, at that point in development, that was the only fix we had time for. But we kept it, and players got him as a follower, and they seem to love adventuring him with. Gameplay trumped story, in that example -- as I believe it should have.

..except FO3 is a RPG for other reasons then being open world.


More like the need to adress the arrogant needs of a fanbase then any dlc sales lure, a equally dangerous element to the quality of a game as publisher greed.

Can you list a few?

This might add some clarity into the discussion, and cut down on crossed terms; (to each their own definition).

Oh don't play coy, you know very well what they are.

No no... seriously, I'd like to see if the reasons match.

So? They still caved into the people for whom reloading a previous save was too much effort and then tried to justify it in this absolutely terrible manner which destroyed some of the meagre faith I still had in them. If they'd stuck by their crap story I'd at-least have respected them for that, but they didn't even do that - instead continuing it with some more.

Nope, if you actually look closer you can see that they cut out the V.A.T.S targeting part and see the crit meter filled up. After the PC fires he gets the "critical on raider" pop-up and the bar is empty. You can see ithttp://postimg.org/gallery/38xcly47a/.

Still not solid confirmation on random crits being gone but it's pretty likely.

When anyone discusses what an RPG is, it's at best nebulous.What I consider integral precepts in the RPG genre may differ from what you do.

People call skyrim an RPG, and probably Fallout 4 as well.I'm not sure I'd espouse the same belief...

What you call "throwing under the bus", I call admitting it was lacking in many areas.

What you call "utterly despicable", I see as a fix for a botched ending that even old school Fallouters felt was "forced" and nonsensical. The only additional DLC Sales they got for Broken Steel WAS Broken Steel and it was EXACTLY what the gamers were asking for. If you seriously felt as you claim, hope you never bought Broken Steel and then no harm was done to you and your FINAL conclusion gameplay.

I know there are lots of Fallout "purists" that hold up the older games and decry that a concluding end is the "Fallout way", but that's apparently not the way Bethesda wants to take the Franchise they purchased. Get over it. As I said, don't install Broken Steel and you're golden.