This isn't about the importance of Roleplaying in an RPG it is about YOUR subjective desire to eliminate something you don't like. Roleplaying is all about coming up with something WITHIN the limitations set by the creaters of a table top rpg, your DM in said table top RPG or the designers of a game. Limitations are part and parcel of roleplaying. Deal with it.

You can either, accept them, quit in a huff, QQ and do the 'woe is me' rant about how Bethesda is ruining the game. Like they haven't heard this chicken little gamer rant before. FO3 was so ruined and so was Skyrim because of design choices they made it is a miricle Bethesda survived as a company just look at their growth during this time period... oh wait. Or if you just REFUSE to accpet the limitations placed on you, you can use a bloody mod.

This isn't an issue no matter how much you want it to be one. It just ISN'T important to Bethesda. Every Elder Scrolls SOMEONE SOMEWHERE complains about being forced to start off as a prisioner and not ONCE have they changed this. Bethesda really doesn't care what their fans say because far too often their fans are WRONG. The big issues that will ruin the game just doesn't ruin the game and the game goes on to be successful. THAT is the track record of bethesda.

Wiggle room in Fallout 3? What? There was little wiggle-room with regard to the PC. You were the son/daughter of two scientists, one of whom died giving birth to you, you grew up in Vault 101 being lied to for 19 years, dad ran away and the whole MQ is about bringing his dream to fruition. Sorry, there was no wiggle-room there.

I can buy that maybe 111 was a pre-War citizen put under stasis, I don't buy that he/she was the mom/dad we saw in the trailer because as gcubed demonstrated, they were so close to the blast that they were impossibly screwed.

No, these limitations are not "part and parcel" of roleplaying, this is an unecesarry imposition on top of the narrative that I do not want.

Stop ranting and raving about what others have said. I don't care about what others have said, I have making objective arguments you do not have the required capacity to deal with, so again, get out of my thread if all you're going to do is pollute it with mindless rants.

Not a fan. Despite the fact that this was sort of the case in FO3, with a father at least, but this would remind me too much of FO:NV which had a way-too-established main character for me to get invested into my own story.

IMO it would have to be the MOST COMPELLING family characters ever and not be in any way annoying for it to work.

Could care less.
If there is a set family, they will probably die.

Objective arguments? What is "objective" about your subjective opinion?

You don't own this thread and you specifically solicited input from others by asking a QUESTION and making this a poll. You just don't like the fact that your opinion isn't and can't be RATIONALLY viewed as an objective fact. You just don't like that limitations are part and parcel of games.

Name a single video game that doesn't have limitations? Name a single RPG (video game or not) that doesn't have limitations? All games put limits that force you to come up with something within the confines of the world state. Nothing about limitations is anathema to Roleplaying, they go together.

Wow. I must've had a different experience because I felt more free with my NV character than my FO3 character. I felt like I could make whoever I wanted whereas with the FO3 character, I was forced to make a character that looked like they had grown up in a Vault and had Liam Neeson for a dad.

That said, I'm not too upset with the idea that the PC might be a mom/dad/child to another NPC.

But how do we even know the PC will even have a family in this game?

So your logic is, "RPGs have limitations, so adding MORE limitations is okay!"

Don't talk to me about objective fact and rationality when you're using such bizarre reasoning, that we should all somehow be quiet and accept it when more things are added that we don't like.

Limitations to WHAT? You're acting like FO4 will have the character so predefined that the RP is basically railroaded into sybmission. This is your reaction to the fact that the PC is, maybe, one if the parents in the house. That the PC is, maybe, married when the game starts.

That is literally the ONE restriction that you are vehemently opposing. It is likely to be the ONE restriction made to the player in FO4. And you're acting like it is the worst thing that could have happened to the series since Van Buren was cancelled in favor of the Fallout Game That Shall Not Be Mentioned.

And even with that ONE restriction, there are several dozen different ways to take it, from the squeaky clean husbands and wives that pervaded 1950s sitcoms to Al and Peggy Bundy.

New Vegas got it right by implementing things from TES. I much prefer the player character to be a blank slate that I can fill however I choose.

It's not that big a deal though, Fallout 3 is still one of the best games of all time regardless of the whole vault 101 setup, its more of a preference than a absolute game changer.

Depends on how it's handled. Having family members isn't inherently bad, but if they flesh out the player character's relationship with those family members too much like they did with Fallout 3 then it gets too restrictive - in Fallout 3 I felt like if I didn't role play a very specific character I was playing the game wrong despite the fact that Bethesda provided choices. If they're going to give the character a family it should be handled more like Fallout 2. They shouldn't have too much of a presence, and the relationship between the player character and the family members should be left open to interpretation.

I must've played Fallout 3 wrong but I always Roleplayed my characters differently some went after James, others gave him the middle finger and did their own thing.

When I create a character I want as few limitations as possible. An origin as a prisoner, a start in a Vault or something is somewhat of a necessary limitation when it comes to kicking off the predefined story in a videogame. Being married is not.

No, I'm saying I don't like it, and that it objectively is a limitation because even those defending it like you are saying it is.

So what if I don't want that? What if I don't want to play a character who's married on top of being a vault dweller on top of (possibly) being a pre-war citizen?

What if I want my character to hate children? What if I want her to be a lifelong lisbian? What if she's just not into marriage?

I'm not saying I would always want these things, the point is I don't like it when my choices are further limited.

While I have some issues with James, the fact is everybody who has even been has a father. Well, except for the alien life form known as Tom Cruise perhaps.

Marriage on the other hand is an active choice, and having a child is a gigantic life changing choice. I know because I have a child.

This is not a thing that should be taken lightly.

I dont care as long as there are no consequences to ignoring them.

That's right. Marriage isn't required to tell a predefined story. Know what else isn't? Starting in a Vault or being a prisoner. Furthermore, marraige may be REQUIRED to tell a predefined story, just as starting in a Vault or being a prisoner. Are those stories automatically bad and should be shunned?


So you're happy having the plot come to your home, insult your mother, shoot your dog, and burn down your house for no other reason than you're the main character, because that's the surefire way to get you motivated to start it? Now instead of it being a choice (or an illusion of a choice), your character is FORCED to at least start the main quest, not because you or the character wants to. That isn't limiting at all? Or undesireable? Or bad storytelling after being done for the umpteenth time?

Well, if they add a family I hope it's something I can forget about quickly. In FO3 it was ok as a start for the game, but having it tied together at the ending seemed to take away a lot of freedom IMO.

I don't mind it as part of 111's backstory, I just don't want the MQ to revolve around it.

Companions are dumb, a family would be even worse.

I liked what they did with Skyrim's Hearthfire DLC, having a home and being able to adopt a child with your spouse. But I'd rather not have the same predetermined family in every playthrough.

I'd rather they leave the character's story in our hands or at least offer multiple starting points.

More people to kill.

I like your style.

I don't like it, I think they should've done what New Vegas did a long time ago. No families, no direct origin, no real place of birth you're just a character thrown into the middle of a conflict in a foreign land. I'm tired of forced origin stories in games ruining role-playing.

If that rumour about PC searching for his/her family is right, then I think it will be nice to play with a mother searching for her child in a game for once.

I understand people not liking it, but you need to remember that every fallout had a set story for its character. New Vegas had the most "blank" character, since you only had that profession but could make your own past anyway.

Lets see, we had the Chosen One, The Lone Wanderer, The Courier, will this one be known as the Family Man/Woman?