There is an interesting double standard... I would bet that 'many Fallout gamers' prefer some of these criteria ~in Fallout games, but are not always concerned about it in other RPGs; it depends on the game.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, and yet... in a way we would both be wrong; there is a 'somehow'.

Game design is a business, and for many in that business... those with the least popular tastes are in fact less ~valued. A game that never says an absolute 'no' will tend to be more popular with a larger crowd ~especially if it deals in empowerment fantasy. The game that says 'you burned that bridge' is taken by some as like a sudden slap, while others may instead take it for granted and might [likely] be annoyed if it were otherwise. But there are less of them to buy your game; you would be annoying the lesser of the two markets by creating a servile product.

I do not agree with (or condone) valuing one taste in games above or below another. It does not make sense IMO ~any more than to value chocolate over vanilla. It doesn't apply. People seek different experience from different flavors ~in games and ice cream.

Small wonder you've listed five of my top six RPGs.

I supposed I agree with your last statement, but it wasn't always so; times have changed. I once gave away my Baldur's Gate discs to a horse & buggy driver. He played them ~loved them... and apparently it played a part in his divorce proceedings ~~to much time playing Baldur's Gate; [No I'm not kidding].

Games that have a complex rule system require more of an [initial] investment from players than games that can just be picked up and jumped into. With most of Black Isle's titles it helps a lot to already know the fundamentals of D&D mechanics. The games are [digital] D&D for D&D gamers, and all but require a journal to keep track of the objectives. Games like Doom and Skyrim can be jumped into without understanding anything about them ~only later once the player understands the workings of it, does it matter to them what effects and behaviors result from their actions.

Why has the discussion dragged into a hardcoe vs Casual debate?

I love both F3 and New Vegas, I still play both of them.

Casual isn't much better. It's very difficult to really define what a "casual gamer" is. It's not much better than saying someone is a less serious gamer or less serious RPG player. Most, I think, on this board would call me a casual or less serious gamer despite my having player both Fallout and Fallout:2, BoS (didn't care for the last two of that list) and FO:3 and FO:NV. I enjoyed them all but yet I must say if someone game me a choice of never playing another Fallout or never playing another TES game, I would have to play the TES games. That alone makes a lot of Fallout players believe or say I am a casual player. Maybe I am. But if I go out into the real world and talk games with people most consider me a hardcoe gamer.

There are really is no square or round hole in which to place groups of players that like different types of games or enjoy one game more than another and we really do fail gamers in general by trying to force them to fit in any group of "casual", "hardcoe", "less serious". "more serious", and many other words used for describing someone who likes different things than ourselves. My biggest fear in doing this is that we may very well be alienating people who might just end up being the ones to embrace our own taste in games given the fair chance to make their thoughts known or to try different things.

Generalizations are like that and without meaning to we generalize about folks far too often instead of just accepting each and every single one of us has likes and dislikes and desires which make us individuals with different tastes. Gizmo game the perfect example of flavors of ice cream. While some might like chocolate because it's more complex, Liking vanilla does not make the person who likes it simple.

I find it best to place such labels on cans of veggies and leave the labels off people.

For moderator advice....you mind?

I think it important that we all who sort of live on this forum and some in this section be very aware of the need not to insult members with different views than our own because when FO:4 is announced (if it is) we all need to be the calm and mature ones who don't get into trouble for flaming when really we did not mean to. I want to increase awareness of this and calling others casual or less serious or other such...often is received as an insult and starts forum warring.

Well, it wasn't intended on my part. I simply said a person needs to be honest with their personal preference in gaming. Because, FO1 and 2 are crpgs, not rpg action adventure. And if a person likes rpgs and wanted to get into FO, I would suggest they begin their journey with 1. If they told me their favorite RPG of all time was Mass Effect 2, I would suggest they start at 3 or NV. Not because Mass Effect 2 is a bad game, but imo FO1 and 2 are worlds apart from ME, and FO3 and NV are more similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZUynhkal1I&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This video, about TES is perfect example. Substitute FO1 and 2 for Morrowind, call Oblivion FO3, and call Skyrim NV and it would represent my idea fairly well.

I just picked up Fallout 3 GOTY edition. Took me a little bit to decide though because NV was marked down to 19.99 to. But, a friend of mine, who I talked to this morning, is a big Fallout fan and he also suggested what I think a few others in this thread suggested, He said play FO3 first then NV or FO3 then 1-NV. He gave a 20 minute long explanation why, which I don't want to try and detail, basically that if I LIKE FO3, then I will be certain to LOVE NV and all the other FO titles. As I said before, tonight will be my first time ever playing Fallout. According to him, FO3 is a good first timer. Thanks again all

If you're getting the game without any of the DLCs get New Vegas, If you're getting the DLCs get Fallout 3.

+1

Ive been frustrated at labels like this on this forum many a time.

There is absolutely nothing hateful in saying a gamer needs to ask THEMSELVES what types of games they like. If someone is all about lore and story and finding out what a world is about, they should most definitely play FO1 and 2. If they do not care, there is no reason to play. Even if they do play, they may not like them because of gameplay, but trudge through anyway for the story.

But the big business trend is to most definitely make games that appeal to casual gamers, because that = $. The key is to balance that between making money and not alienating your fan base.

You said:

The question a gamer needs to honestly ask him/herself are: are you casual or not? Casual games hold your hand. Give arrows where to go.

Look up "casual" in a thesaurus. Synonyms include: capricious, careless, directionless, frivolous, indiscriminate. Antonyms include: determined, resolute, goal-oriented, formal, serious. Which would you prefer to think of yourself as?

"Casual," as used on this board and elsewhere in the gaming community, is an insult. It implies that the target is a less serious, less skilled, less discriminating player than the "non-casual" or "hardcoe" gamer. It implies that they don't know what they're doing and aren't to be taken seriously. It's an expression that "that kind of gamer" isn't as devoted, and the kind of games they like to play aren't as legitimate. It's elitist crap, and whether you intended it or not, that's what you invoke when you characterize a gamer as "casual" or the kind of games they like as "casual."

Casual: Relaxed and Unconcerned.

I am a casual Skyrim player. I can give a crap about the lore, and I know hardly anything about it. But, that does not represent my gaming skill by any means.

In another thread you described Skyrim as a casual game. It doesn't mean the gamers who play it are casual, but many did and you said so yourself. Just like hardcoe gamers did.

I figured when I said if you interested in story, lore, etc that the meaning of my use of the word would have been understood along with the context of self reflection. I guess not. My bad.

Words have meaning beyond the intent of the speaker-- connotations. Baggage.

Your argument is disingenuous, as you're attempting to deflect the meaning of your own language by describing yourself as a "casual player" of Skyrim, when what you really mean is that you play Skyrim (an individual game) casually. This isn't the context in which you were using the term, and you know it. The question you asked wasn't whether the OP wanted a game they could play casually, it was whether the OP, as an individual was "casual." You then went on to describe "casual" games as games that "hold your hand" and give you an "arrow" to tell you where to go. This condescending, judgmental language. It was received as such, and not just by me.

I have never described Skyrim as a casual game. I think you're probably referring to the comment I recently made that many people who played Skyrim have never played another TES game. This comment does not even imply that those gamers are "casual," only that they are newcomers to the series-- indeed, they must be, as Skyrim sold more than three times as many copies as Oblivion ever did, let alone the earlier TES games.

I was arguing that gaming is being "democratized," e.g., accessible to and enjoyed by more people. Only your own biases equate that influx of new gamers to "casualization" of the games they enjoy.

No I said a gamer, not the OP, but a gamer in general needs to reflect upon themselves.

Who or what are the gamers who have never touched a TES game and the story of TES is irrelevant to them? Are they not targeted by publishers to make more $? Where did these sudden sales come from? I just don't have the faintest idea who you are referring to...

Obviously it is cool and the gang to make innuendoes, as long as you do not say the "c" word.

And, I also said both FO3 and NV are more casual games than FO 1 and 2. And so is Skyrim. They do hold your hand and point you in the proper direction. You do not need to read a game manual to play. They are easy. FO1 and 2 have a learning curve that can lead to frustration, or gameplay mechanics some may view as annoying. Are you going to dispute these game features? That doesn't mean the people who play them are only casual or hardcoe.

However, you did teach me to just innuendo my way around, and in the future say "A gamer needs to ask themselves if they are interested in a game series history, lore, and story, and if yes, play the originals and if not play FO3 or NV and skip them.". There, I avoided the "c" word.

I always thought the term 'Casual' in gaming meant, easy accessibility? Something a non-hardcoe gamer can easily pickup and play, and not spend much time reading the manual?

This is why Bethesda uses quest markers amongst other things, so that way the non-hardcoe players can enjoy the game, without much stress. This is also why they removed classes and attributes from Skyrim, a non hardcoe gamer doesn't want to stop the flow of the game, by stopping to select which attributes to level up. Bethesda's goal is for gamers to have as much as a comfortable gaming experience as possible. Attributes, stopping to read the journal and making sure your equipment is up to stuff, only get in the way of the non hardcoe gamers playthrough.

Believe it or not most non hardcoe gamers find such things tedious and boring. This is why most people love Fallout 3 and hate NV and the originals, too much thinking not enough action.

For the most part, Fallout 3 is considered to be gared towards casual gamers by a decent size of this forums posters, who (sometimes righfully, sometimes excessively) critisize Fallout 3.

This is why the term causal gamer is going to carry a negative connotation on this board, particualary when dealing with F3 fans. It practically implies that if you are a fallout 3 fan and not a greater fan of other series instalations, that you're casual gamer and a fan of a game that "gets it wrong". I dont know that anyone likes to be pideon hole'd like that.

Imagine youre getting ready for the day..... you look in the mirror thinking, "looking sharp" and then the first person you run into says, "Wow, you look like [censored] today"

That is your comment on FO 1 and 2. Who would they be daunting to, or rather, why?

You went on to say only the board extreme enthusiasts would recommend NV or the originals, but the "real world" much prefers FO3 because of game reviews, which are actually basically the same across the board.

Others took on assumptions that because the OP was a Skyrim player he should start at 3 or NV.

I tried to get the OP and any gamer to think what they want or like out of a game. IF story is important, by all means, begin with 1. If not, it doesn't matter.

Had I known that self discovery was a sensitive topic, I would have chosen my words more careful.

However, I am not sure what real world you live in, but in mine I do not recommend to people interested in story to say read "Return of the King" and then the "Fellowship" or to watch "Return of the Jedi" before "Star Wars".

And so, I apologize for my elitist casual response.

Indeed, I have 0 problem with casual gamers or games. Casual gamers is what gives game devs the bucks so they can crank out games.

In regards to FO I think the old fans don't want to see the series overly streamlined or made too easy. I think a balance is possible, because "c" word gamers like to be challenged, as well has "hardcoe".

My best friend is a "c" gamer. He likes Skyrim, but considers it way too easy. I told him in order for a challenge he basically needs to nerf himself, and so he did, and that is what I do as well. But, imo, we should not have to nerf ourselves to create a challenge.

I neither have problems with "C" gamers, depite the fact that I've been playing Fallout since '97. I prefer the originals and NV, but that doesn't mean I'm going to slam someone cause they prefer Fallout 3. I mean if FO4 turns out to be a flop in my eyes, I still have Wasteland 2, to feed my need for a post apocalypse rpg.

As don't I - hell, based on the number of games (in general) I can even bother to try, let alone finish, these days, I could probably call myself a casual. But I do have a tick with developers that put that group above everything else when they develop a game. As if that group either is the whole market or consists solely or even mostly of morons, 'tards and ADHD cases who can't stand or grasp anything with a hint of complexity even after trying. Catering to the lowest common denominator is the bane of all gaming. [censored] that; it degenerates the whole community.

Why do you assume that new gamers are casual gamers?

I wasn't even talking about the kind of players who were picking up the game-- the discussion was about how the market for games has increased, and this increase is largely responsible for the precipitous increase in sales between Oblivion and Fallout 3, and then again between Fallout 3 and Skyrim. Whether these gamers were casual or not wasn't even remotely in issue.

There was no "innuendo." The only reason you perceive one is because you saw a reference to large numbers of new gamers and assumed these were "casual" gamers. This assumption is borne of the impression that Fallout 3 and Skyrim represent "casualization"-- which a lot of self-professed hardcoe gamers think is synonymous with "dumbing down."

When I said that the TES series meant nothing to these new gamers, it was in response to an argument that because Skyrim sold more copies than Fallout 3, Bethesda shouldskip Fallout 4 and make a new TES game. To a new gamer whose first foray into the series is Skyrim, "The Elder Scrolls" as a brand, is irrelevant. These new gamers are just as likely to respond positively to a great new Fallout game as a great new TES game. That has nothing to do with how "hardcoe" they are; just how long they've been in the market.

You pointed out why the game can be "daunting" to new players in your own post, above: the basic mechanics of an older game like Fallout are a barrier for new players. When they were originally released, it was to a crowd who had grown accustomed to the conventions of cRPGs of the time-- thus, barriers to entry were lower. For better or worse, games have advanced a lot since then, and the mechanics of contemporary games aren't as awkward, so newer gamers don't have that base familiarity with those antiquated systems.

I'm convinced Fallout 1/2 are worth slogging through the mire, but in order to motivate yourself to do that, it helps to have a healthy interest before you start.

I never said that the "real world" "much prefers" Fallout 3. I stated that the reviews give it a slight edge. This remains true-- ten points on Metacritic is not statistically insignificant. The intent was not to present these critical reviews as definitive-- rather, critical reviews often better reflect the initial reaction a new player will have to the game, as they're written upon only limited contact with the game, and largely for an audience that is unfamiliar with it.

Your anology to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings is inapt, as those are actually subparts of a continuous story arc-- what happened before gives vital context to the later parts. This isn't really true with the Fallout games. You don't need to have played Fallout 1 to understand Fallout 2-- there are references to the earlier one, but they are tangential to the main storyline. Same goes for Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

If you'll recall, my argument was that he should start with Fallout 3, as it's more accessible that the first two and lays out some of the major themes of the Fallout universe very well-- then, if he likes that, go on to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, as he'll be more motivated to stick with them until he develops the necessary familiarity with their systems if he already likes the setting and wants to know more about the story-- and then, to play New Vegas last-- not because it's worse, but because familiarity with the prior games will help him understand many of the "in jokes" that pervade it.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take.

Who are the new gamers then? Who is the group of gamers they are marketing to? How do you account for this massive boom in game sales?

Are you trying to suggest that the change of cRPGs over the past 25 years is merely an "accident" and they stumbled upon a broader market?

You, yourself said, FO1 and 2 would be daunting. Why would it be daunting to all these new hardcoe gamers? What makes it more daunting than FO3? To me, FO1 and 2 are extremely easy, and NV is probably the most difficult FO game, besides that darn ghoul SM mission in Tactics.

Do you think when they market FO4 they will go on a large marketing campaign talking about a return to crpg roots? How it will be story driven, and top down isometric with shark 2D HD graphics? That they will go more into depth with text based dialogue so they can concentrate on great story telling and quests? That they will focus on choice and consequence in a meaningful manner?

Or not...


If you have no stereotype on new gamers, why would you not suggest FO1 to start? Again, why read Return of the King first?

See my most recent post, above.

Fallout 1/2 aren't daunting because they are "hardcoe," they're daunting because they employ awkward and deeply counterintuitive systems which can be prohibitive to the uninitiated. Once you understand those systems, the games are easy as pie-- but the learning curve is steep. Note that this isn't a skill-based learning curve-- unless you consider the ability to navigate bad UI the relevant skillset.

Seems to me you are making an assumption that new players can't hack playing 1 or 2.

How do you know a new gamer isn't 40 years old and his favorite game wasn't Baldur's Gate or Planescape, but he stopped.playing.games until he saw a TV commercial for Skyrim?

My post was a gamers preference should be based upon their own personal playstyle and gaming goals.

People need motivation to slog through FO1 and 2... lol.

If you want to talk about "insulting" I found your initial post filled with little jabs beating around the bush insulting. Not only did you insult "extremists" who appear out of touch with the masses, but you go on to insult new gamers themselves who apparently can't handle FO1 or 2, yet then call me hateful when I say gamers should answer what they look for/want and decide from there.

Whatevs, lol. We can just disagree.

Oh and you ignore every question.

FO1 and 2 were the first crpgs I had played since Bard's Tale series and Wasteland. I must be a genius of UI skills because I never had an issue with them.

Your reading comprehension needs work.