Yes, I'm serious. I think Diablo is actually one of the finest RPGs around, albeit is an action role-playing game. It's a well-made package, combat is excellent, storyline and lore are top-notch in my opinion, music and cinematics are well done. Most of all, what the game tries to do most, it does extremely well. I can't ask for anything more from a product, especially one that has given me satisfaction for over 15 years.

I have never heard anyone say that TBH.

Also, at least according to this

http://www.the-numbers.com/features/starwars.php

"A fairer comparison of the relative performances of each movie is a count of how many tickets were sold for each one. This shows more dramatically how the release pattern of movies has changed since the late 70's and early 80's. The modern movies are considerably more "front-loaded" than the original trilogy.

Although the graph doesn't go far enough to show it, note that in the table below, every movie has sold less tickets than its predecessor in the series, at least until Revenge of the Sith, which looks as though it will beat Attack of the Clones fairly comfortably."

Yes that graph is obviously reflecting release patterns of movies. I mean how many people see a movie in a cinema these days after it's already been out for a month? and like I said the old movies had multiple releases.

Anyway, the new movies were very different to the old, with a lot of criticism, and still made a huge amount of money.

I don't disagree.

Now i liked pillars of eternity. For a simple kickstarter game. But to compare it to f4 is a joke.

Id gladly play an isometric fallout game like the old ones if it was a mobile game or something like that (sideproject: fallout classic, an engine like that of f2). You know, not meant to be better than all other games ever made.

But for a numbered fallout title then they better bring out all the big guns. Because if it is going to be the best game ever made, like f3 was for its time, then that is needed.


Fallout is much much better now.

But that is a must, because the new technology and experience from earlier games.

On the debate of stat controlled aiming vs. player aiming I have to say I'm really enjoying replaying FO3 right now with the FWE mod. I can aim straight at an opponent and see the bullet fly right past him, then realize my gun skill is 25 and go "wow, that's awesome". As my skill level increases, so does the accuracy of the bullet related to where I aim. I can literally tell the difference between skill level 25 and 50. I don't understand how anyone can argue that it shouldn't be like this in an "RPG" like Fallout? Why would anyone want the bullet to go exactly where you aim if your skill level svcks?

Modern ~and older RPGs don't tend to indicate relative skill visually, very often (if at all), or very distinctly when they do. The player can commonly see their PC attacked by two enemies, using the same animations... but one enemy may be attacking with +5 to accuracy and damage, while the other is attacking with +29's.
(This actually happened to me in an RPG.) One needs to be able to understand ~technically, what the PC knows in the moment, and understands by experience... The player cannot feel what the PC feels when they punch (or get punched by) an enemy that feels like a bag of bricks, or hits with the precision of striking a blind and bound target ~despite them being free to defend themselves.

It would be different if the game switched out animation sets for PCs and NPCs alike, to indicate the presence of advanced skills; most don't seem to... and a numbers list is far easier, and just as functional. The best I've seen is unlocking special attacks, but that only indicates minimum skill.

The two are [ideally] mutually exclusive. In an RPG, you can essentially consider the player's input, as suggesting actions over the phone... "Shoot this guy first", "Pick the lock". It should be impossible for the player to say, "here, let me help you".

I would not describe RPG like that myself. I would say that RPGs are for extrapolating PC behavior ~based on the role; and in a game specifically designed to acknowledge and react to PC actions, and as well to filter those actions to what is appropriate for the current PC(s).
*The role need not be optional, (though often is); just as it's very often mutable (which is usually good).

Your post uses the terms "outdated", and "stale", and "significant" in very subjective ways; ways that you may not realize come across as a bit condescending; and you mention skills as needing a lot of points at once ~as if that were a flaw.
*It was a gatekeeper mechanic in FO3, and Fallout 1 & 2; though in the latter two, the PC that was a few points shy, could often succeed if time was an option... Conversely, in FO3, the PC could never succeed with all the time in the world. I expect that with perks-as-skill, that FO4 has shifted farther towards the permissions model; [where the PC cannot fail if they have permission, and so always knows the outcome in advance].


I think this is mistaken, in the sense that the issue with many changes is that they are understood, and seen for what they are ~and what they are is the problem.
As for what we don't know, we know reputation and intent; extrapolation and informed guessing can lead to some pretty accurate predictions.


Are you saying that a mobile Fallout would be fine using the original presentation style, so long as it doesn't outshine a desktop release?

League of Legends looks isometric to me and may as well be...

I also have to wonder why you are here, Gizmo (I'm not saying you shouldn't be, just seriously curious).

If you are so convinced the game is too shooter-ish for you liking and you truly want an RPG in the vein of the original Fallout top-down isometric genre, why are you even bothering with this game at all? Why not go bash Shadowrun Returns or Pillars of Eternity for not being good enough or not making a Fallout like successor? You seem intelligent enough to realize Bethesda isn't going to alter their path with this franchise, so your reason for continuing whatever this vendetta you have seems more and more like mauling the deceased equine to me.

Don't get me wrong, I like the point of view of an old time gamer (hell, I'm one of those), but it's obvious nothing short of Bethesda announcing they have changed their mind and are now making FO4 a top-down, isometric, turned based RPG will interest you in the slightest, so why constantly show up here just to let everyone know (again) that you are bitter about how the Fallout franchise has evolved away from what you believe is the best type of game?

I love shooters.

It's presented as a sequel; rather than a spin off.

Where is the flaw? Nether of those was intended a Fallout sequel.

Mutually exclusive may sound good to you. But in practice, there's always some balance between the two. That's why you as an experienced player of the early games know how to use the mechanics and no doubt have little trouble completing the games.

Whereas I got my [censored] kicked so much I gave up. (I must have another go some time).

I know how to use the mechanics, because I read the manual before playing. ... And in those games [in the Fallout series as designed], the PC is the defining limiter of what can be done in the game. The very meaning behind "writing checks your body [or mind] can't cash.".

I'll say it again Fallout 3's combat was not great and gunplay was almost impossible without VATS with a controller. I'm very happy hearing about these Improvements, I just hope they haven't gone too far down the FPS tree. As much as I like Borderlands 2's Gunplay, I don't want Fallout 4 to turn into that. I want faster enjoyable combat but not something too fast. From what the Trailers shown, it looks right, hopefully it's like that at release.

The main point I am trying to get to is that people are basically calling Fallout 4 less of an RPG just because it does not have the exact same formula as the previous games or similar RPGs. You seem to be determining that Fallout is removing itself from the RPG genre based on your own conceptions on what makes a game an RPG. You mention permission mechanics, which you seem to not favor very well. Whether the change could increase or decrease the quality of the game is irrelevant. What you haven't properly explained is why such changes makes it less of an RPG.

It seems like you are irritated because change is happening in general. You act as if freedom is being taken away when it is really still there but in a different form. You may not like the change, but that does not mean the game is less of an RPG for it.

Yes, but the PC is still under your control. Otherwise they could just leave all combat decisions to the character, which should mean RPG to the max, presumably? But few players would enjoy that.

Honestly it seems its time for certain people(or a certain segment of the fanbase) to just move on. The series is not headed in the direction you want, thats fine. You cant do anything about it, and the complaining has moved from constructive to "I want the old fallout games."

Just my two cents. I realize no one is forcing me to read these posts, but I would like to read the gamescom threads without sitting through the same exact arguments over and over.

At the risk of repeating myself, who would enjoy an RPG where the is no skill to govern your aim, but it's 100% up to the player and his/her ability to aim with a controller/mouse? That's a straight up shooter mechanic, nothing to do with an RPG.

The RPG elements are being gradually phased out of everything Bethesda makes, how can this even be contented? Look at Skyrim compared to Oblivion, that's what I figured was going to be the difference between Fallout 3 and 4. Frankly I'm not bothered either way, I was always more married to the world than the mechanics, and the game will probably be quite fun.

If anything ~despite even the most radical mutations of game and setting, I'd say that any RPG sequel should at least be of the same kind as the preceding one.


Not opinion...rather: Based on the existing foundational series its tacked on to.


I agree that it [+/- quality] is irrelevant. I did not know that it [ranked permission problem] needed explanation; [that's honest ~not a slight of some kind.]

*A brief comment off the top, is that permission model makes the PC infallible. The player always knows the outcome of any [skill] action. The PC is an inhuman machine capable of perfect repeat performance despite changing circumstances ~because they don't happen in a permissions model. Perk rank 2 [presumably] means they now access rank 2 locks, or answer rank 2 science questions, or hack rank 2 terminals, etc...
It means there is never any risk to any action; never any chance of something unanticipated. A bomb defuser ~rank 5, will [presumably] never make a mistake with a rank 1 bomb.

Isn't this a bit like "What's wrong with almond milk!? ~it's just a different milk; try it, you'll like it."

You're being an example of someone that I find is confused... No offense.

From what I know so far about Fallout 4, it has great RPG elements... Maybe even better than Fallout 3's. Having other elements doesn't ruin the RPG elements at all... It just means that FO4 has more to it.

I've said this to the point of superfluity, but for me it's never an endeavor to relive the halcyon days of the originals.But conversely to abate what I deem to be the abject mutation of the series, and the forcible conflation between it and TES.

I'm slowly realizing that Fallout will be subsumed into the TES ethos regardless of my own indignation, regardless of how often I ardently articulate the same points and regardless if people will one day become bored of the similitude between the two.

It's painful to say, but I'm beginning to realize that Fallout will soon just be another video game series.

You mean a game that offered far more ways to develop your character since it ditched the linear 1-X attribute system, where nearly every upgrade was forced, in favor of perks split into various branches?

How terrible, more choices in an RPG..... what a crime.

How is that a bad thing? Fallout isn't necessary made to be a trilogy so once the 2nd one was made, it became a series... And it being a series isn't bad as long as the series itself is good.

Finally someone else notices that! Jez... That attribute system in the previous TES games... I hate how so many people fussed over it and I felt like I was the only person who was like "Oh. That's cool.".

I'm not sure if you've misunderstood or vice versa.But I'm saying that a series that has been so seminal to me in my own life, from my gaming interests to my academic and intellectual endeavors will soon garner the same fugacious glance I give to every other run-of-the-mill game series.

That's a difficult realization to admit.