But this is a video-game, more precisely an RPG. Taking the numbers away doesn't make it less of a game, but a different game altogether. It's a way for us to know how much our character is improving and what we can do with him in the confines of the game world. If you take all that away, than you don't end up with a better simulation, you end up with less of a game.

Fallout is not becoming "better" rather just more accessible.

Also isometric games aren't antiquated in any shape, form, or way and these purportedly superannuated games are still being released today.Across all demographics, price ranges, genres and platforms.From Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, Transistor, and Divinity...

Ok, but if that "some" is the negligable player-freedom-inducing amount that allows you to pass the investment and still excell, doesn't that come around again to the "do you really need it"?

How much is "some" to you?

To me, if there is a metric to imply character aptitude, it damn well better do something that has an actual weight in the gameplay, instead of being just a slight buff. FPS or not.

It is a false assumption that in a shooter the player does not exercise the PC's abilities. Shooters can range from very easy to very difficult. Shooters can allow players to do some things and not allow them to do others. The effectiveness of the player against enemies, and against certain kinds of enemies. can vary in a shooter just as it varies in a traditional RPG.

It is abandoning reason to say the difference between a good shooter and a good RPG is that one is player accurate and the other is PC accurate. The former description considers the player, and the latter description considers the player not at all. The latter considers the PC, and the former considers the PC not at all. The problem with those descriptions is that in both a shooter and in an RPG, both the player and the PC are involved and relevant. By choosing -- either accidentally or mischievously -- to ignore that fact is to set up a false dichotomy.

Ranked perks don't define an RPG, or constitute a substantive focus on it being such.

It might be presuppositional, but Fallout 4 looks no more an RPG in regards to combat than any of the recent COD games.

No offense, but all of those are incredibly niche games, either funded by their niche audience via kickstarter, or barely sold 600,000 copies, in the case of transistor, because only their very small niche buys them.

Everything you just listed does nothing but show that those types of games are antiquated, as only the very small nostalgic niche plays them.

Diablo 3: 15 Million Sales, more than Fallout 3 and New Vegas combined.

Except todd confirmed there is character numbers under the hood, so its still above COD, its maybe not a rpg by old antiquated standards, but is a rpg.

But as we know isometric games aren't antiquated at all. First person is fairly old as well.

First Person is still like THE number one genre of games on the market.

Isometric RPG games are about as popular as RTS games are nowadays, which is to say there Star Craft 2 and........ basically that's it.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/4/9097497/diablo-3-sales-30-million-units

Niche isn't conterminous to antiquated, these games are not inferior in any metric bar sales, which is an argument I've extirpated you on countless times.

Sales are by no means indicative of quality, this point is easily comprehended in a world plagued with Taylor Swift, Transformers, Call of Duty; and fifty shades of grey.Sales are a metric of cupidity and nothing more...

Niche games are not inferior games, triple AAA blockbusters are also not innately superior because they can capitalize on the sequacious masses

Diablo 3 isn't an RPG, its also one of the most well known series of all time alongside Starcraft and Warcraft.

Given that the point of media is to entertain, sales are a measure of quality, as they show how much people were entertained by it. I don't like CoD, but I wouldn't say its a bad game, if it was, people wouldn't buy it or play it.

I liken Fallout to Star Wars. 1,2 and Tactics are like the old trilogy, and 3 NV, and 4 are the new trilogy.

That sounds pretty apt to me.

Sure it is. People eat at McDonald's don't they? Doesn't mean it is good food.

Yes, except, unlike Star Wars, where the new trilogy was basically hated universally, the new Fallout games have achieved a level of success and fandom the old ones never came close too.

So, in a ways, its like the reverse.

Define "good"

"good" is entirely subjective. If they didn't think the food was good, or at least appointing, they wouldn't eat it.

You may find it not particularly good, but that doesn't mean it isn't good to millions of other people, or that their opinion of it being good is wrong.

I can't say I'm a big fan of Tactics. Tactics is the least RPG-like of all the Fallout games, even with all it's stats.

The Phantom Menace took more money at the box office than any other SW movie. According to you that makes it the most entertaining and high quality movie.

It might not have been an RPG, and it wasn't trying to be, but it was still a decent game...and certainly more memorable than F3...come to think of it I probably put 5x as many hours into F3 as I did Tactics and I still barely remember anything that I thought was particularly great about it.

Does that account for price inflation across decades?

I'm sure it is, but there are quite a few popular isometric titles out there. Diablo 3 has outsold anything put out by Bethesda so far, so that's quite telling.

https://us.battle.net/shop/en/product/diablo-iii

Bringing FPS improvements into an RPG somehow makes it less of an RPG? I am beginning to think that people don't even understand what an RPG is. Role Playing Games are focused on building a character to your liking and engaging in a world with a story and narrative while making your own choices in combat, dialogue, and other activities. They also allow players to evolve their characters into any fashion they desire, such as a scientist, warrior, silver-tongued individual, ect.

Can you build your own character in Fallout 4? Yes. Will you be placed in a world with a story and narrative that allows you to make tons of different decisions? Yes. Can you fine tune your character into any play style you want? Yes to that as well. These factors alone makes Fallout 4 into an RPG and there is nothing that reveals it being anything less than that. Just because there are improvements that come from the FPS genre, it doesn't mean that RPG elements have to be sacrificed in order to implement them. For me at least, Fallout desperately needed changes to the FPS aspect of the game as I felt it to be fun yet clunky and flawed. Just because it does not operate the exact same way as Fallout 1, 2, and other old RPGs, it does not mean Fallout 4 is not an RPG. It just offers a role playing experience in a different fashion.

I can understand the frustration other veteran players may have seeing this franchise evolving into something different from Fallout 1 and 2. However, change happens as a franchise grows, especially when it moves into the hands of another developer. Unless Bethesda wanted to risk the Fallout becoming outdated and stale, they had to renovate the identity of the franchise. I have seen some people complain about mechanics and features seemingly being removed such as skills. I don't see any RPG elements being taken out, just implemented in a different way. Skills are still there, but they have been placed into perk system in which more significant changes can occur when improving those skills. While the point system for skills was nice, it was pretty outdated and the effects of increasing them were not very significant unless you poured a ton of points into one skill at once.

I think part of the problem is that we are getting angry and annoyed about changes we don't fully understand. We speculate based on small details we know and start to complain based only on what we think may happen. We cannot jump to conclusions about how Bethesda is ruining the franchise when we have not even had the chance to play the game to see how it all works out. Being hyped or concerned about the game is fine and all, but lets not start assaulting Bethesda and each other until we know how everything works.

Of course, with how linear Tactics was. No side quests to speak of, no random events, just one mission right after the other. Very easy to remember. Very hard for me to enjoy.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Wait, your serious? Diablo 3 is about as much of an RPG as Zelda is. Hell, even Fallout 3 is more of an RPG then Diablo is.

There is one, and that is Diablo 3.

I dunno, I'm looking at worldwide numbers. Not to mention the fact that the original star wars was re-released in cinemas multiple times, which skews the numbers. It seems with inflation adjusted in the USA ep IV is higher, but, as I said there were numerous re-released, plus no doubt going to see a movie was much more expensive back then.

Anyway, young people tend to think the old trilogy is too slow, and boring, some might say "antiquated".