Yes, this is an open world RPG. Don't confuse that with a sandbox game. There is a story here that they are trying to tell. You get to take part in that story in a world that is open and that allows you to roam freely.

I don't think it is possible to roleplay yourself at least not by anyone that shouldn't be in a rubber room. You can play yourself but in order to roleplay yourself, you cannot be yourself. I am sorry, but the whole concept of me not being me so I can pretend to be me just make my brain hurt.

Not here to tell anyone how to roleplay. I honestly don't give half a [censored] how anyone else play. Imo having a wife and kid is just something I rather not deal with. Unless I'm able to shot them in the face the second I see them.

Can't argue to that... It's true; (and I've always hated that too).

I wasn't talking about FO4; it was about roleplaying in general.

Did I say sandbox? What are you talking about?

I don't need hand holding, sorry.

I was about to respond to them again, and then I saw this, and realized that you're absolutely right.

I always thought role playing started with D & D. Which allows you to create a character sheet from scratch. That is an RPG. Also a game where you are forced into the role of some spikey-haired-anime-boy-hero IS STILL A RPG.

The fact that the character had a wife and kid should not keep you from emerging 200 years later a born-again ______ (whatever you want.) I assume the family aspect will surface in the story a little for emotional depth or something, but shouldn't keep anyone from creating/playing the character they want to be.

I have faith the game will deliver. I am scared of changes, but I think I can live with what I see so far. Time will tell.

Choosing who you play is diferent from role playing.Many games let you choose who you play as before the actual role playing experience starts.Look at the witcher series:Those are excellent rpgs yet you PLAY just the ROLE of Geralt.You have freedom of choice and also a set in stone background.The fact that we can't chose to play as a nobody dude who appeared out of thin air one day does not make Fallout4 less of an RPG.Sure,it loads you with a background,but dealing with that background is what role playing is about.

No, you didn't, but your usage of "open world" made it seem like you were confusing the two of them.

Actually everything he said was a red herring and has nothing to do with the definition of roleplaying. Words changing doesn't change the fact that the definition for roleplay has never changed, and that the only people arguing against it are people that don't know what the word means in the first place.

You however know exactly what roleplaying is. But I don't need to tell you that, as you already know.

I roleplay in a pretty "hardcoe" way, although my characters tend to echo things that I like in sci-fi/fantasy. Ive been experimenting with having a small amount of characters that travel through various games and fictions so that I can be more focused on them, since my current system of making a original character for every RP I want to do means that I don't get quite as immersed with their personality as I would like. Having a character that is dedicated to Space Sci Fi, Modern/Post-Apocalpytic, and Medieval settings would be quite interesting...

Still, I imagine that the people who do the hardcoe roleplaying is rather low. People treat Bethesda games however they like, be it a deep sandbox experience to live another life in, a shooter to breath through the main quest, a more traditional RPG where they focus on the story, and everywhere in between. Im not going to say that anyone who plays the game the want they want is wrong. The reason Bethesda built up over the years to make billions is because they make games that YOU can enjoy the way YOU want, and although I have my doubts about this whole voiced thing, its still at its heart going to be a game that can be experienced in multiple different ways, and the one that is right for you may not be right for everyone else.

My personal take on an imposed framework for a story, is that it is not detrimental. It is a frame that does constrain the story ~from among all possible stories, but IMO it should be looked at like an arbor upon which the story grows; and that's usually into a pleasing shape for its underpinnings; instead of a meandering heap on the ground.

Indeed it didn't... It had to do with the truth of dictionaries.

...And the problem comes when they take a grandfathered RPG series, and its reputation, and make of it a game that fully supports playing it as a shooter to breeze through the main quest, or to live another life in.

It opens up a great opportunity to those that would never have played the series; and strips and negates everything respected by the series creators, and its original fanbase.

AP: That doesn't preclude them from having fun with it, or making the best of things.

I don't want to spend most of the game looking for a family member again. Yet them appear early so I can shot them and be on my way

Technically it had to do with the evolution and etymology of words. Except the word roleplay, unlike say the word awesome has always meant the same thing. A dictionary is the only way to link evidence that I know of. I mean I could have linked Wikipedia (which effectively says the same thing), or some page about roleplaying written by who knows, but we all know the can of worms that would have created.

Although i am amongs the people that consider that the more you have control over the character the more you get close to what the rpg should be, i don't think the OP even mentioned that word and might not be impossible to consider this as partially off-topic. (i don't think so, but i am not sure it should at the forefront). On the other hand, the consistency with the Fallout series itself in dealing with that question cannot be off-topic. From what i got and how if invested myself in it, it is rather :

- Is the early sequence and the added voice reduce the amount of freedom you had in creating your character ?

- Does those elements (and others) provide enough elements to be worried about the rest of the game ?

- Was that freedom important enough to be missed if it disapear ?

- Would you like it, hate it, not care ?

There is no reason to bash each other over it. It is a relevant topic for those who care about those aspects and one of the many randoms thread they should probably ignore for those who don't care about the very fact those questions are discussed. (which doesn't mean that you shouldn't answer if you care about the topic but disagree about everything the OP said)

You can link it to psychology. Roleplaying started out as an exercise in empathy for those that had trouble with it.

Then let me ask you all this. What is the point of character creation then? To make a character that has nothing to do with you? Why give us an option to make a character at all? I know for sure a lot of people out there base the character off themselves. I know I do but if that was not what Bethesda intended then why not give us a male or female character to choose from that we can't change the look?

For that matter why would Todd Howard say during E3 "This is an enormous dynamic world where you can create any kind of character you want, go where you want, and do what you want." if that is not true, why did he say it?


that quote alone makes what you and everyone else says completely wrong because Bethesda intends to let you play as you want lets you do what you want, lets you be who you want. Whether it's a character you would never be in real life or a character that is you Bethesda intends to let you do whatever you like.

All this crap about definition of roleplaying, being gay or straight, being a man or woman, and being a psycho or a hero. This entire conversation is useless because everyone seems to be forgetting one important thing.

Bethesda is making a game where we can be whoever we want to be. I am not the one saying these, members on the form are not saying that. Bethesda themselves are saying that.

What right do we have to doubt them? How did we gain evidence that they are lying?

If I want to be a 59s housewife Bethesda will let me
If I want to be a homosixual man who saves the world, Bethesda will let me
If I want to be a straight married man, Bethesda will let me.

Bethesda will let us be whatever we want and yet we refuse to believe them. Why? What is the point of this topic when Bethesda has already given us our answer?

Seriously folks I realize these issues can be of concern but geez, it is becoming a cluster[censored] now.

Don't you ever get tired of saying that over and over again?

Or in the classical era when the first plays were recorded in history. Where the ancients would act and roleplay as even older historical figures, such as gods, leaders what not (history for them, mostly lost to us). Or maybe the advent of improvisational theatre from the Renaissance. Anyway, yes I guess there is more evidence.

meh, dbl post

Why is the predetermined backstory a problem now? This has been a staple of Fallout since it's inception. The Vault Dweller, the Chosen One, the Lone Wanderer, The Courier. All had some semblence of backstory. The Vault Dweller was a naive kid, the Chosen One was a tribal, the Lone Wanderer was a dedicated child of James and the Couier had a nemesis. Why is it all of a sudden having a Pre War background suddenly "stifling creativity"?

Plus, there's a rumor that the Vaultie of 111 is actually a clone of the original person from the prolgue, so this topic is pretty moot until you finish the game and it gets answered.

So if you did read my whole post then you're agreeing with me right? Cause You summed up exactly what I meant.

Point 1: If you're making an RPG, by default you need a main quest. Removing the main quest results in a sandbox or simulation game. Outside of the MMO genre, this has held true.

Point 2: That main quest tells the primary story of a RPG. Otherwise, it would not be the Main Quest.

Point 3: Because of Point #2, some stories require a specific background and history for the player character. Sometimes it's less, sometimes it's more.

Point 4: By playing an RPG, you should accept the fact that these limitations occur, and are likely to be necessary for the main quest. If you do not, and don't care at all about the Main Quest...

... then why are you complaining? You are no longer playing the game as designed and intended. You are using the game to play a simulation or sandbox. And it is the producer's fault for wanting to tell a story that requires a more restrictive background, instead of your own for wanting to completely ignore the main quest and whatever restrictions required for it?

Consider the opposite. What if (and I think it's eventual)... if Bethesda offered the world with no stats, no skills ~no anything but a custom appearance, and a level by doing advancement system?
If all the game offered was a stream-of-consciousness experience; effectively a VR-sim, would there be any need for a character?

Characters allow the player to be given or to create an inhabitant of the game's world, complete with their own [that character's own] view of the world, their confidence, and what they are capable of accomplishing. The skills, and stats, aptitudes, and limitations afford the player to see that world as someone else ~in the sense that they are in the other guy's shoes. They have the other guy's skills, they have their limits. That doesn't happen in the aforementioned game style. You cannot start out playing Bruce Lee, you cannot start playing Zoro, You cannot play the Elephant man; you can't play a silver tongued negotiator... All of these require a skill affecting past and other than default stats. The first fight you come to when playing your martial artist master, the opponent beats you up, because you are not a master of anything... that's not seeing the world from the other guy's shoes... that's reliving memories from grade school.

Imagine the player who has earned a black belt, and is playing an uncoordinated teenager trying to get home past his daily harassment by the local gang. His PC cannot block, or karate kick them; the player must solve the situation in a way possible to the PC. That might be going to the police, that might be using a storm drain instead of the alley, that might be getting caught and beat up; or it might be [incredibly] talking his way out of it. If the player only ever played themselves, they'd only play competent fighters, and they would miss out on the alternatives of roleplaying someone else.

You don't think it's true?

I actually completely agree with you,i'm not saying that fallout 4 will not be and excellent open-world RPG,i love the idea of having freedom of action.I am aware of the fact that fallout 4 will be a shooter-sandbox-rpg hybrid and I'm fine with that.I'm just sick of peole acting all mad because bethesda tries to set a good foundament for it's storystelling.I'm not criticizing Fo4.I'm critizing people who use words out of contest without understanding their meaning.Drives me mad lol .