I wouldn't rank Planescape as a better game than Fallout; but I do think it's a better RPG. I'd put Arcanum on the list, but I've not made it far past the first fight at the bridge.

I don't think so. FO3 compared directly to all previous IP titles, seems most derived from FOBOS, in both fiction* and gameplay. It's an evolution on FOS, and could have passed for FOBOS2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLFvVvotTxg

*Though it extensively recycles the plots of Fallout 1 & 2.

Haha, oh that one got me too, but the great thing about Troika games is if you can think of a way to get around obstacles, no matter how absurd, you can do it lol That's one thing Bethesda could learn from them. Maybe Fallout 4 will allow some of that, being able to think your way out of a situation that doesn't always involve straight-forward combat, maybe a little bit more strategy.

edit: If you were playing a tech oriented character, that one will be a hard one to get out of though.

As a better RPG...well we're going to have disagree on that one, but we'll save that for a different thread.

Yeah. Arcanum takes some getting used to, even with it being so similar to Fallout. Game's hard, yo.

Fallout 3's "fiction" is nothing like BoS's.

BoS was nothing but on giant lore [censored], with stuff like metal music. On the other hand, both Tim Cain and Chris A have said Fallout 3 fit the series, and it stayed true to the general 50's ascetic.

Its nothing like BoS unless you ignore everything about what was actually in Fo3.

In my experiences, it's less about the rules and more about what the game actually lets us do. Daggerfall's creature language skills meant jack all for creating a unique experience when they did so little in the actual game. I could say the same about stealth in Bethesda's RPGs prior to Oblivion, too.

I guess somebody should make a new thread. We've hit the post limit.

Lol at that VGA article, typical click bait.

Well in those cases, it was just poor implementation. Those features would have been great had they been thoroughly fleshed out. The rules would have defined them -- how, when, and where they can be used. The problem was, they couldn't be used in any meaningful way. The stealth in Morrowind was just poorly implemented. Probably one of the better improvements in Oblivion.

I wasn't really talking about the plot per se; and amended the post immediately after.

*Thread Post count jumps fast in this one.

You should try some of your own advice. I know you know that's not the case.

My point this whole time has been that they are recycling the core design and experience, not recycling "everything". Of course you will find changes when you dig deeper with individual matters, but how does shooting being even more FPS like really affect the overall experience of the game, for example? The previous games were already FPS's to a great degree. How does adding some more random side activities change it in any other way than giving more weight to the already existing high level focus on them. From the looks of it, the player will play and manage this game exactly the same way they did previous Beth games despite these select changes. That's the point.

I don't get it. They are not at all sandboxes despite being like sandboxes?

I honestly see no greater resemblance to BoS in fo3 then I do in NV.

That trailer is really nothing like anything in Fo3.

Completely the same game, except for

-vats changed
-real time combat changd
-melee with guns
-volumetric lighting
-reworked PA
-weapons modifications
-settlements
-mods for everyone
-voiced PC
-skills changing to perks
-new weapons
-new enemies
-PC living pre and post war
-amount of companions
-Amount of companions we can take with us
-romance
-managing settlements
-and on and on

Completely recycled, though. For sure

It's pretty similiar to the Fallout 3 trailer in its attention to action and mayhem.

Well, it seems in the article they mostly mention how character models, notably ghouls, and animations seem to be pretty recycled as well as some items in the game world. I don't know how true this is. The article could have been misleading, but that was the writers impression, which isn't much, but we don't have much else to go by...

The game itself graphically does appear to be an improvement, but not a whole lot, which makes me think they focused heavily on plot and world design more than impressive graphics, which I would be fine with.

I wonder what the authors expectations were though. Maybe he expected cutting-edge visuals and graphical upgrades. I probably was too in the beginning. My question is how better is the combat in this game vs the previous. The combat in NV and 3 were just atrocious. Probably some of the worst I've seen lol. I'm not even joking. I was pretty glad to hear that they got some help from Bungie in this department. I hope they made it a lot more smooth this time around.

This. Lol

Same could be said for NV's trailer, what with all the Repconn rockets going off, the Boomers shelling of the town outside Nellis, the explosions at Hoover Dam's gun, and the apparent explosion of The Strip.

That is just marketing techniques used by...... literally everyone.

Agreed, it reiterates on certain mechanics while retaining main characteristics that were a part of Fallout 3.... I mean, this is the evolutionary path of any franchise. Most of the best franchise changes evolve from the prior game without discarding things that made it good. This is why I can sympathize with people that make the Fallout 2 to Fallout 3 argument, but that isn't what the discussion is about anymore.

Except for inXile.

FO4 is NOT recycled FO3 /thread

They dont make games that have any real action to show off. They dont even really make games that get marketing at all.

And this is basically as close as one can get to that kind of trailer with the games they make.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKcBWGw93L0

Indeed it could.

Although, trailers aside, I can't help but find similiarities in the gameplay goals too with BoS and F3 (and yes, even NV due to inherited gameplay).

Oh, it's no doubt it's a fine sequel to Fallout 3. But it could've been that even if pushing certain things to slightly different direction...

Well, we really don't know that yet for sure. But it is a little disingenuous on the writers part to report that. This is what I meant in another thread about the maturity level of video-game "journalism" as they call it lol. He's judging this based on some textures and meshes he saw in the game world. I mean, how is the plot, the combat, the dialog? Is this recycled too? I would be concerned if that were true, but we don't know. He admits he saw a lot of combat, but didn't extrapolate how the combat works, is it more fluid, is it better? He saw a gameplay video first hand, and didn't have anything to say about those things but instead focused on some computer terminal looking the same as it did in Fallout 3. I wonder how much this guy get paid to do what he does. An eighth-grader could do his job lol.

You said literally everyone, which means literally everyone, of course that isn't true. And the reason they don't make games that have any real action to show off is?? Because these games aren't about action. Is Fallout about action?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/15/living/literally-definition/

You are aware the word literally also means figuratively?

"Gizmodo has discovered Google's definition for literally includes this: "Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling."

But it doesn't end with Google.

Merriam-Wesbter and Cambridge dictionaries have also added the informal, non-literal definition."

It is now (to a large extent).