Well it's always going to be you if you're the one playing. Otherwise, why not watch a Let's Play? You can roleplay being another character if "things were different". As for building upon the original Fallout's, you mean update the look to what Wasteland 2 is like, but still keep it play like the original games?

Peace and loooooooove, man.

No, it never is; that's what's so great about real RPGs. You get to know the PC (based on bio, skills and stats), and extrapolate how this person would react to a set of circumstances; which can be wholly different to how I might react to them. You get to see how their ethics and sensibilities [applied] may serve them well, or get them dead in a ditch somewhere; or cause people who trusted in them to come to a bad end... or perhaps the PC was right, and they were saved because of them.

If you find a game that supports it, try roleplaying Don Quixote sometime; insanities and all.
*The only game I can think of off hand though, is oddly enough a non Fallout title that uses the Special system; yes that's not strictly owned by Bethesda (even if they think so).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionheart:_Legacy_of_the_Crusader is an RPG set (like Fallout) in a divergent timeline; not the 1950's, but in a medieval setting. [Not the best RPG though.]

If you mean: pretend how it could be if I were a wizard, then no thanks; that doesn't qualify as roleplaying to me.

But of course; how could any fan of the Fallout series not want that? Wasteland 2 may be a poor Wasteland sequel, but its the best Fallout sequel released in 15 years, and InXile knows it.

When I think of immersive games I don't think of highly detailed graphics.

What I think of is games that allow me to alter the environment and use objects.

Being able to use objects and change my environment allows me to engage my imagination and be creative. I become immersed in the game world and its logic.

If everything is window dressing then I'm not as immersed. The difference is like being on a space ship vs. being on a space ship ride at an amusemant park..

I agree here, lots of the realism stuff don't add much to immersion. Some exceptions like the mod I use in skyrim having the character yawn then sleepy is nice it also adds small buffs who go over into non then small debuffs long before you get serious effects, in short it about immersion not difficulty.

An popup during an fight telling you that you are hungry and carrying capacity are reduced is not immersive

Stuff like low light levels makes the game harder, it can also make the game more scary, yes it has been overdone a lot.

Gameplay mechanisms as inventory systems and fast travel has almost no impact. Graphic and design are critical Both fallout 3 and skyrim is good here, fallout 4 will be better as graphic and details will be better.

WOW! I am honestly kind of surprised about what people are saying here. Over on the skyrim forums, the forum trend is realism is immersion and and anyone who disagrees is a casual.

I agree with what seems to be the concensus for the most part. Imo, I, in some ways(not EVERY way, just some), find kingdom Hearts more immersive then any Beth game thanks to the focus on telling a detailed story

Nearly every skyrim "realism" mod? VERY few of them are actually realstic. stuff like wet and cold for example is nice because it does not interfere with gameplay. The needs mods and sim8lae on the other hand do not add to gameplay, break my immersion with popups and make you micromanage things that should only be in sim games

Indeed. That's why i only play https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SZaE7QkME38#t=99 now

Anyway, i am fully against the I- and R-words, as the only thing that have come out of them are annoying inconvenience features


Nintendo 64 graphics? Bah, i still play https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XocZ-O8WA1A&list=PLF1E2QkyK-FEq-Yh5QoxmRJEP-6gxynal


QFT.

I'd like to point out this isn't immersion breaking because platypus are mammals that reproduce via eggs IRL.

This game would actually be pretty daunting if you took realistic damage. Deathclaw swipes you... dead. Shot a couple times by raider... dead. Step on mine... really really dead.

I don't think that's the case. I think people clearly understand what the word itself means. The difference is what is immersive to one person isn't necessarily immersive to another. It's a word entirely based on subjectivity.

Which is exactly what he said.

Actually the most immersive games to me are Strategic games. I can get so caught up in them and never realise how much time has passed, any other game though, I don't simply forget that it's a game. The notion of that seems wierd to me honestly.
That is the extreme though as I think inany media, some familiar elements make the world more believable. Physical impact, Sound design and ambient sound are good examples of this. Also things like foot print, sweating and othe visual stuff.
So to me visual cues or realistic mechanics are not that important, but the gameplay of the most unrealistic thing can be so damn engaging.
I think Skyrim modding ruined the word a tad bit (Mind you I love Frostfall).

You sure? To me it looks like he's saying people are interpreting the definition of the word differently.

Realism was out the window from the first Fallout game. Also, this is gonna sound really anol, but deathclaws aren't mammals, I believe. They're mutated chameleons, IIRC. Also, there are egg laying mammals, such as the platypus (nature's most awesome freak).

Yes, and is this not exactly what you said too? You wrote,

"It's a word entirely based on subjectivity."

You two are saying exactly the same thing. Am I missing something here?

Simple misunderstanding. People have been discussing the different parts of Fallout that make the game immersive to them. They weren't trying to redefine or personalize the definition of immersion. That was the original point I was trying to make.

Lol, that's what I meant. I just don't feel like it means much to call a mod immersive any more; it's kind of become a joke.

I hope Fallout 4's mod community at least finds a new buzzword. I like "Organic" myself.

I get realism every day when I go to work. I don't need/care to have it in Fallout. If the game play and mechanics are fun, then I am 'immersed' in it. If you want realism in combat then play a shooter. I use VATs always unless I am out of AP. If you want realism in primary needs and other things - why? Also, I don't see how 'immersion' can get 'broken'. If you aren't having fun then play something else.

It's become the same with the term RPG.

When I play video games, I look for immersion. Suspension of logic and disbelief. If I want realism, I'll go outside.

Can't you have both?

By having a difficulty setting and a hardcoe mode, you can choose the level of Immersion and the level of Realism that works best for you.

One of the worst things about Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas is that once you know the game and get through the first third of the game or so, it starts to get too easy.

The Fallout New Vegas hardcoe mode was a great way to keep the game challenging.

And the best thing is the player gets to chose the challenge level.

I'm personally hoping that hardcoe mode will have several levels so that you can fine tune the challenge.

Bottom line is the Level of Immersion you're experiencing is up to you.
YOU'RE putting yourself in the player's shoes in a self-contained world with its own physics.
VATS for me is immersion breaking because everything stops; the music, the interface itself forces you into the PIP-Boy's shoes and no longer in the character.

I don't see the logic in having your immersion broken by a raider rushing at you with double handguns because "you can't aim accurately with 2 guns in hand."
That is just overthinking. You're no longer putting yourself in the character's shoes but you're putting your brain on overly-anolytical mode instead of just enjoying the game.
Realism shouldn't be a factor in the level of immersion.
If that were the case then you won't be able to enjoy good games like FF7 because there is no way in hell Cloud can swing, even carry a sword that big with that lanky body of his.

I get immersed every time I find a game with great customization, but most importantly with interactive characters that tie well with the story, and are not just there because it's cool.

I also enjoy games more when I can use my own playstyle, keeps things fun every time.

Realism...I'm already thinking about the Skyrim mods on the Nexus: ''IMMERSIVE REALISTIC LORE-FRIENDLY [something which is nothing like those words I just wrote]''.

Realism is kinda good, until you get to the annoying, tedious maintanance part. So I'll stick with semi-realism.

No, they cannot JUST have both. It takes time and money to make something like hardcoe mode and it is something that maybe half the players will use not c everyone. Obsidian did because they are not a company that has more than a single game going on, PLUS they had most of the work done already in fallout 3

What I get out of a game is all about having a fun, cinematic experience. With Bethesda games, I want to wander and explore. I rarely use Fast Travel mechanics. Usually I employ those when I am trying to finish a quest and I have a real life deadline to meet as well.

I tried all the "realism" mods for Skyrim as well as the hardcoe mode for New Vegas. They added some interesting "spreadsheet gaming" dynamics for the game, but ultimately failed on the cinematic side of things. For one thing, the mod author's view of realistic and mine often differed. Food mods, for example, seemed to demand that I have something like a 10 million calorie per day diet and constantly pestered me about eating/drinking. I ended up going with a food mod that boosted recoveries for the three main stats. Cold weather damage/hypothermia mods robbed me of the ability to explore freely, one of my favorite aspects of the game. I ended up removing the hypothermia mods altogether. I can see a point to them, but the experience created is far different than the one I want to play in.

It's hard to predict exactly what I want in Fallout 4. I know that I want a cinematic exploration game. I'll get that. It is going to be all the little details that I get to discover, as the player, that are really going to be fun. Of those, I'll probably find a few that I dislike and a few that I will wonder how I lived without. I know what I don't want (mostly the weapon degradation mechanics) and I can imagine a few mods that would be fun (expanding the powered armor to include other forms like Starcraft marines and capabilities like extended jump jets). Other than that, I'll have to tell you once the game comes out and I have had a chance to play in that sandbox for a while.

You know, I can't really think of what hardcoe mode actually did that made the game super difficult or heavy on realism.

I mean Ive never played without it, since I loved my primary needs, but you still recover your health 100% when you take a one hour nap in a bed, companions being mortal is a simple on/off switch that I can do myself with the right console commands, and guns still do the same amount of damage with everything having the same stats regardless.

Primary Needs is the entire reason Ive never played without it, I always enjoy the immersion of having actual living costs involved with trying to earn your daily bread. Especially in New Vegas when you can live off the excess of the land through collecting plants and what not. Also for the record I don't have the "hardcoe" achievement on my Steam, since ive only done the ending once, and I often crack open the console to help with taking screenshots of my travels.

I only used it because it properly handled ammo weight, and reined in the out of control medical mechanics. I had to tolerate the other crap about thirst and food; but I would have preferred that that not have been part of the deal.