It's bar none the most RPG game out there today.

Witcher, Mad Max, MGS5 are not RPGs, its more accurate to call them Assigned Role Playing Games (ARPGs - pretty clever heh? You are free to use it at parties to impress friends or guests) - kind of defeats the whole purpose of an RPG.

And the silly FONV pick a choice responses from a list so I can get some different results (the the testers have a hard time testing all the permutations), bleh better than whats in FO4, but barely. Feels like I'm reading one of those kid pick your own adventure books.

Give me the option build ugly hole riddled shacks, decorate Piper's house with a plastic pumpkin full of gumdrops, gather robot parts and build robots, capture creatures and pit them against each other in a bloody battle to the death, now THAT is an RPG. Whatever that may mean lol.

I disagree, I think Fallout 4 is Bethesda's worst RPG (not worst game).

Wasteland 2 is the most RPG game I've seen in years. Picked it up waiting for F4 and it blows fallout 4 out of the water in terms of being true to the original.

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm.

OT: In my opinion FO4 is an action-adventure game with some RPG elements, it does lean more towards the action side of things tho.

It depends. I grew up on JRPGs (Early Final Fantasys before 7, Suikoden 1-2, Vandal Hearts, Shining Force 1-2-3, Breath of Fire series, etc) and the difference I can tell is that with JRPGs you play a role/character pre made and set out for you and you play a defined story, there's no way to create your own path. WRPG you create your own role/character and you create your own story and path to an extent. I think the term RPG is a loosely used term, as it means many different things to many different people.

Your definition of an RPG is not the one true definition of RPGs. The genre is too broad for any one person's opinion of what an RPG should be to be factual.

How so? The dialog is hands-down better than Skyrim, and barring a few exceptions, better than Fallout 3, too. Or it is if you want to judge it on how you can use the dialog to roleplay. It's their most branched-out main quest, with several different paths and shortcuts to the ending as well as different post-game states based on your actions. Remember that Fallout 3 forced you to side with the Brotherhood of Steel to follow the main quest, and no Elder Scrolls game outside of Daggerfall or Morrowind's backpath gave you any amount of choice in how to pursue it.

The leveling and character building is the most realized and nonlinear, with a ton of choices every level that have a meaningful effect on your character build. And unless you've actually obtained every perk on a single character without exploits, talk about every character eventually becoming the same is pointless. The first 50 levels are more important than anything afterwards, and you'd have to deliberately put it off to reach that point without completing a majority of the game's quest content.

I'm not broadening the term, the term has been broad for years now. There is no such thing as a "proper RPG", It's entirely subjective. For instance, if what defines an RPG to you is being able to create your character's backstory and character then by your logic the Witcher 3 isn't an RPG at all.

What is your personal opinion (That's all it is) as to what an RPG is supposed to be?

Because you cannot actually play as any other role than the concerned father, there is no full evil or good way to play the game, you are shoehorned into siding with the Minuteman no matter what path you choose, and 90% of all dialogue results in the exact same response from the NPC with no consequences or change in action. I agree that Fallout 4's main quest is one of the best of Bethesda's games but everything else outside of that is bad in terms of RPG mechanics.

You definitely don't have to side with the Minutemen, you don't even have to go to Concord...

But you are forced to stay in positive light with them the entire game, all 5 characters in Concord are essential NPC's and nonkillable, you cannot destroy the Minuteman or even get a bad rep with them, they're like a migraine that stays in the back of your head the entire game.

FO4, for me, is by all counts an RPG. Playing "Devil's advocate" I could argue that it's mechanics are too much watered down, to be a full fledged entry in the Fallout series, but I can't really argue that it isn't an RPG. There's dungeons, Wilderness encounters, you create your character, you level up (and there's even some RPGs that can even live without that). Sure, it could have more tactical depth or be a bit harder on the player, but that's just my taste, not the end-of-all RPG definitions.

I rember quite a lot of (then praised) RPGs with no branching quests at all and the only choices were how to spend your ressources (Level ups, torches, water, potions, ammunition), but yes these choices were meaningful and had consquences (like whether you can actually survice to get to the final boss or if your expedition was doomed because of your wasteful use of ressources some levels back). Dungeon Master, Might and Magic or the original Bards Tale come to mind. Wizardry? I guess I was always to casual for Wizardry

Yes, it's an RPG. RPGs come in many different forms, from pen and paper to live action. Like all art, just because a medium is different doesn't mean it's not art.

I never said putting gum drops in a plastic pumpkin or building settlements had anything to do with an RPG. Now you're putting words in my mouth.

Not everything can be made into a roleplaying game game, no but the RPG genre is far broader than you seem to think it is (Action RPG, JRPG, ect). What you're talking about is a traditional RPG, which I agree Fallout 4 is not

Not really sure what you are trying to say. That all RPG's should abide by what have been in the past in one form or another, because, history?

A few posts have gone away. Let's remember to be respectful of others' opinions here.

No, I'm saying that just because a game is old doesn't mean it's deprecated or that the game isn't relevant. I'm saying we should appreciate the games of the past and use elements of those games in future games. They are just as relevant today as they were when they came out. Play them, and you'll see not much has really changed besides the graphics and certain gameplay designs. But no, I don't think games HAVE to abide by the characteristics of older games simply because they are old.

To put it this way, it doesn't seem many here have played Wizardry 7. It's a monumental RPG that forever changed the genre and influenced quite a few games in the genre. While your party is expected to complete quests in the game, there are other parties and adventurers in the game doing the same thing you are, and sometimes you'll miss out on quests because another hero or adventurer already completed it. It adds another layer and dynamic to the game and gives the impression that the world is indeed living and breathing. This is something I would like to see again -- not in every RPG, maybe not in TES or Fallout, but again. Do you see what I mean? If we forget the past, we may not see this gameplay element again or it may be falsely attributed to a game that didn't implement it first.

The Witcher is definitely an RPG. I think your definition excludes mostly every RPG out there, especially the grandfather of the cRPG -- Ultima, since your role is the Avatar.

Wasteland 2 is quite an amazing game.

Well, the legacy of old games will always stay with us, in one form or another. Many base techniques regarding gameplay, story, setup etc. etc. are still in use, altho, more refined, altered and molded to suit the individual game. Just like the idea of wooden houses with four walls are still in use, but now a days, it may be build with other materials, colours, shapes and forms. But the underlying idea of a shelter with walls and roof, are still very much intact.

As for Wizardry 7, never played it, so couldn't say.

Fallout 4 has SOME RPG elements integrated. Many of your actions and dialogue choices result in changes or limitations in the game. So, you can call Fallout 4 a RPG without lying.


I don't know if there really is a pure RPG out there at all? Most RPG games are a mix of action, adventure, strategy and RPG.


A pure RPG would be so incredible huge and take several decades to create.

Not really no. At least not in my oppinion.


Ever since morrowind "rpg" games have been getting farther and farther away from what I actually consider to be an rpg. The thing is you can only code and implement only so many things in any given game. In doing so we have lost what I consider to be real role playing, which is you can literally do anything. Any time you limit that you lose the core of what the genre is supposed to be.


And saying that, bethesda is my alltime favorite developer. Because while a lot has been lost moving away from traditional pen and paper roleplaying, they have kept enough of it that I still love their games. (Except for eso.. but I hate mmo's so that should have been expected.)


Tl; dr

Do I consider fallout 4 to be an rpg? No not really, but I would still list it under the genre or rpg...if that makes any sense.

Look okay, back in the day "devices" (computers) weren't as powerful, available or cheap. People had a lot of imagination and willingness. They played board games and read books. Then as computers became a thing, they turned these into computer games.

Some "nerdy" games focused on telling a story, giving you as player some choices within said story and all this was surrounded by game mechanics whom as far as I know were stats-based. These were imo RPG, these were based off both a game and a book.

Between now and then machines improved and thus graphics / size / content scale with that. The problem that I personally see nowadays tho, is that game devs - who are sponsored by the men in gray suits above 'em - are pulling a cult-level entity such as RPG into the mainstream. Yes I know, blabla, all this crap about mainstream this, mainstream that.

Sadly it's true, what a lot of people say (even tho some arguements are badly flawed and the hater train has probably more parrots & idiots than actual people voicing their own opinion properly in an intelligent manner) about F4 being a "bad" RPG.

The hater train is mostly flat BS however there are some things that are correct.

What people miss is that indeed, there is no single, easy to set parameter to decide if a game is RPG or not. Games in general can take RPG elements inorder to make both gameplay and story more interesting. The problem is that when a game was already intended to be RPG that the dev takes away from that. Like what happened to F4. Honestly, you have to admit that F4 has some good improvements yet instead of adding them to the game, they replaced old good stuff with these. Which is showing total incompetence of understanding RPG fans and RPG mechanics as a whole. This iis the true reason, people are tilting over F4. They are imo, angry cause something was lost, not because F4 is "bad". Cause it is not bad. It's just not as deep as even F3 RPG wise.

Whoever is responsible for that, be it the gray suits or not, are the problem. Fundamentally you don't need a RPG to look incredible good and invest all your money in that blingbling, you do need to invest all your money in the story and having the story root into different parts. F:NV did this, went the full damn way and it was good (investing in story), F3 did it for the most part but didn't go full RPG. The evidence is there that you literally still have BOS in F4 while you could blow up the BOS in F3.

Both are fun games. You can't tell F3 was bad, it was just not as deep and still.. it is a RPG. Just like F4, you can't say it is a bad game, it's just not the same type as F:NV is.

If you really need more explanation on what "good" RPG's contain then here we go:

1) A very well written and defined story, in which you as a player get absorbed and "feel" like you are the character you play.

---> It is not necessary to be able to graphically modify a pc fully but sometimes it adds (dragon age). However if the story is top level, it isn't needed (witcher, final fantasy, deus ex).

2) Classic RPG leveling system often based on stats. Focused on character progression (game mechanically) this also further down the line goes in sync with the story. If not directly then indirectly one will feel "maturing" of a pc.

3) A world/universe around you that feels it gives you story on it's own, making you want to explore more of it. Aswell as making it so that there are limitations in a logical sense.

Okay so notice how actually all 3 aspects in a way amplify eachother if you think about games that score good an all these points? All this is based off good writing and hard work. When a game FEELS good that is what you get. And when a game LOOKS good you're talking about graphics. You should have better graphics every "gen" but the writing should stay at a top level where all points stay valid. And that is where it goes wrong nowadays.

---------------------------------

To me for F4 in particular;

1) The story started off very good but towards the end there was no big difference in choices. This is caused by key characters not having enough screen time, not being fleshed out enough. Factions just not being established enough in their actual goals. And aswell as post-game there just isn't a damn difference in who "wins" reward-wise, which is a mistake since the game was intended to be played post-MQ.

2) The leveling in F3 made you too OP, in F:NV it was just good. In F4 they should've done a F:NV with improvements. Instead since the release of Skyrim, BGS fantastically f***d that part of RPG up on a grand scale. I have no freaking clue who, what and why they did this to Skyrim and F4 but "perks" are completenonsense.

Good RPG always been with a basis and expanding upwards in a certain fashion. From bottom to top you'll define your pc by taking some skills and postponing others. This is how it's always been. There is no basis at all in F4, there literally is no reason to have any stats known as "SPECIAL". It literally is just there to unlock perks in a linair fashion, once unlocked only your pc level determines how deep you can invest in said unlocked "perk". SPECIAL itself modfies about nothing compared to a good RPG.

"But lol you mentioned deus ex earlier, you don't have those stats modifying anything either in that game". Well now Deus Ex: Human Revolution had fleshed out levels that legit made you build your character in such a way fitting to your personal playstyle. You solve your problems with your talent points there. In F4 there basically is no "level design".. there are just places to talk, stab or shoot people. While this type of approach is fine, your skill trees should still be a vibrant part of your way of dealing with stuff in situations thrown at you. You should be able to talk as a high STR guy in a way a high INT or high CHR guy does not, in dialogue. In no dialogue you should have a different way of handling locked stuff. F4 just doesn't even try to do that. It's non-existant.

3) The world is the same you loved in all previous installments. However it feels that there is little progression in said world both pre- & post-MQ considering you can literally destroy whole factions and their leadership. Also there have been details weirding me out entirely between pc actions in F3 that don't flow through in F4.

But on the good side of the game, it is still a very fun game to explore in. They took a lot of fun stuff from previous games and used it. Infact I seriously hope they keep doing these improvements. The raider logs for example made for entertaining reads and added some life to raiders. There were some fun side stories and added lore, while the only real gripe in this compartment is that it's 2015 and the map feels way too small (as in both too small dungeons and too few AND the map itself is physically too small for the amount already in place lol).

So in a nutshell:

Basically it's going to the bakery for blueberry pie every year because you like eating it for your birthday, okay. But for some reason the pies seem to lack more and more in flavor each year passing. However the pie still looks good and looks visually pleasing and each year small visual adjustments are made. But damn it, it's never gonna be as good as that simple spot on pie from the very first time.

Technically almost all video games are RPG because we are playing a role of certain character in a video game. lol

Haha, I am sure everyone knows this though.


Japanese people call their game RPG when you play certain character in a game doing level up and stuffs in pre-set story and dialogues.


Western people call game RPG when they actually create their own character and make decisions within game that actually changes outcome in the game.



...FO4 is kinda less RPG than FNV in my opinion.

But it is either better or equal as RPG game compared to FO3.



Additionally, FO4 definitely qualifies as great RPG game compared to other plain 3rd or 1st person Shooter games.

yes

I'd wager most gamers today probably have zero knowledge of it, and therein lies the problem. A gaming culture without knowledge of it's past has no direction. Every medium I can think of honors it's past. Movie critics honor past films with pride and talk about the advantages of certain films over films today. Even, some directors have gone back and used different lenses than what is current to day to achieve certain effects they saw in older films. It's a living medium.

RPGs are kind of suffering in this regard. Nobody realizes the great feats achieved years ago that go unnoticed and unimplemented today, and it's infinitely more difficult, re-creating the same gameplay designs made by designers before you as though they're new. In any other work, it's unheard of.

RPGs and games in general need a history, and it needs a curator. It would go a long way to give gamers a solid knowledge of RPGs and the games that were pivotal to the genre and how they're still important today. Perhaps, discussions like this would be less confusing because everyone would be working from the same body of knowledge instead of saying all RPGs are this and only this or that RPGs can be any game lol.