The "dumbing down" arguments, lovely...

Firstly, Bethesda's games aren't made to be hard. And honestly, Fallout 4 is one of the harder games that Bethesda has ever made.

Secondly, Fallout 4 has better RPG elements than Fallout 3 and New Vegas for sure. It's just that the dialogue system is pretty terrible and this is just Bethesda wanting to try new things.

Lastly, Bethesda will never make a linear world. That'll go completely against what they mainly focus on in their major games.

Basically, they aren't catering to the lowest dumbest gamers. They are just making their own games and changing the other elements to better fit their games for the best experience. While also trying new things with every game to see how it goes. I honestly believe that Bethesda will not be trying this dialogue system for their next game, for example.

How do you figure? Seriously curios.

This.

A lot of Bethesda's older games (Fallout 3, NV, Morrowind, and Oblivion) suffered from a serious leveling issue which discouraged roleplay a lot for me. Hell, I only made like 2 or 3 characters top in Oblivion because of this and a few other major issues with the game.

This leveling issue being conflicting attributes and skills. It doesn't seem so at first but at later levels, most characters tend to be very similar. In Morrowind and Oblivion, your characters may have very different skills but at the later levels, they may just have very similar attributes. In Fallout, it's the opposite... Different SPECIAL stats and perks but very similar skills.

The reason why this problem existed is because you are forced to put points into skills/attributes when you level up in these games. What happens when you max out the skills/attributes that are specific to your character? You have to bring others up... This can cause a lot of strange characters. I remember having a mage in Morrowind with almost maxed attribute... Why would a mage have 100 Strength? Or perhaps my strong idiot character in Fallout 3 having 100 science?

Bethesda realized this and changed it in Skyrim and Fallout 4. Both games gained a very amazing perk system that can allow different characters to grow respectively but both games also used a different system. Skyrim used the skills system, allowing the player to train their skills as they see fit and level up that way. Perks were limited by skill level. In Fallout 4, they used the SPECIAL system instead. The player gain experience in general to level up and then they can use a perk to do one of three things. Increase a SPECIAL stat, increase a skill perk, or pick an unique perk...

In both cases, I am able to create so many different characters without once being discouraged or losing my "roleplay mood" because I was never forced to do anything against my character. Both systems respect your roleplay choices and allows you to level up your character respectfully. I'm on my 3rd playthru with Fallout 4 and am planning to do a 4th one... My first one was a shotgun type of guy. My second one was a craftsman, a person who doesn't get good at using weapons but uses crafting skills to make very powerful gear. Now I'm doing the classic sneak build.

I started fallout with fallout 3, then tried 1 and 2, then new Vegas. So I am by no means an old school fan, but I hate fallout 4. I've put 20 hours into it and that's about enough for me.


It's a fine game, comparable to other games like it, farcry and bioshock, but as a fallout rpg, it is very lacking IMO. I like fallout for providing deep RPG aspects, and up til now 3 was the worst for that, now 4 is even worse and now my least favourite.


It just saddens me to see Bethesda going away from rpgs and going towards a shooter with very lite RPG aspects. And it's not just fallout, but the elder scrolls as well.


And to top it all off, they ruin fallout lore, like having a vault experiment using jet, which wasn't invented until like 150 years later. And going the tes route and not wanting to mention what happens to their previous protagonist.


But those aren't my biggest gripes. What I hate is how they turned it into a hiking simulator shooter that's just about capping baddies and collecting loot. Oh Cool a Poseidon oil building, maybe they'll have lore about vault tec and their connection to the government, Oh no, just a generic building with generic bad guys to kill and no back story.


What happened to the deep quest branches of new Vegas, having numerous ways of beating quests? Now most choices are do the quest, or don't do the quest. 90% of the quests are go here, kill a bad guy or collect an item in the middle of a bunch of bad guys and bring it back.


The graphics are Cool, the weapon customizing is Cool, the shooting and vats kills are cool, and the landscape looks Cool. But behind all that Cool is no substance, just grinding radiant quests and building up settlements, which is unnecessary and not why I play a fallout game. if I wanted to build settlements I would have played one if the numerous settlement builder games out there that do it a lot better.

Just for starters, it sounds like we define role playing in different ways. I wouldn't consider "a shotgun guy" and character type or personality. That's like saying "I'm an engineer" when that's clearly just how I make money. I like to think I'm a bit more than that.

While I agree that the skill, perks and leveling structure was a little messy in the earlier games, I find it odd that Beth went and completely reinvented the wheel instead of fixing what is the classic RPG setup (stats, skills, levels, etc.) They could've simply fixed the way the system worked in the earlier games instead of inventing a triangular wheel which has basically no relation to a classic RPG system. I understand that it "just works", but it leaves me with no feeling of playing an RPG. I'm honestly shocked that we don't even have skills anymore. That's such a basic concept in an RPG. To replace that with just perks (which used to actually be perks in the meaning of the word, but have lost a whole lot of value since you get one at every level now), and to place so much focus on SPECIAL (which doesn't actually do anything in-game, similar to how little skills did in the earlier games due to the 25/50/75/100 gates). Back then, sure, a lot of "builds" could end up looking similar, but I feel like Beth have eliminated that a bit and replaced it with a completely generic PC in FO4. He has NO personality and one bland voice with extremely limited dialogue options. And this is where I start defining role play: The things you say and the actions and moral choices you make. They have literally no consequence in FO4 and I'm forced to play a mass murderer because my only option for solving quests is by killing everything in sight. In earlier games there were usually at least a few different ways of solving most quests, some that involved using your science skills, some using your charisma or medic skills, and of course, some using your gun.

So to say that FO4 offers better RPG elements than the earlier games would of course depend a bit on how you define RPG, but in my definition, it offers next to nothing. If you think roleplaying is whether you're specialized in shotguns or good at sneaking, then ok, maybe FO4 does it a bit better since it's newer and thus have better programming for those things.

Considering the emphasis on pruning out much of the RPG'ness in favor of more FPS'ness and slimming the questing down to a basic, unvarying, short, straight-line railroad trip to a samo canned ending- to be more precise, it would be called Call Of Duty: Boston. It has indeed become a much better shooter. But after reading Evilbastard's reminisces on FO2, and my own memories of FONV, it's sad that those kinds of choices, options and possibilities are no longer available in the FO world we've been dished up. I finished one playthrough, explored what there was to explore, quested what there was to quest, and now only partway through a second go, the lack of real choice and repetitiveness of everything... is already making me lose interest.

I don't know if I'm allowed to post in this thread since I didn't play FO1 and 2. After hearing so much about the first two games I'm curious about them but I've heard they don't run well on more recent Windows. For what it's worth though New Vegas is by far my favourite FO game and second favourite RPG overall.

Now I think FO4 is still a fun game and have quite some hours in it but it's definitely very light on RPG elements such as non-radiant quests, NPC interaction and (meaningful) choices. It's not a question of nostalgia or elitism or anything else, there is simply too little of those things in the game and they are mostly confined to ghettos like Diamond City and Goodneighbour. Even such quests as there are seem to mostly boil down to killing stuff. Even exploration (which is usually one of main Bethesda's strengths) suffers simply because it's hard to go anywhere without being constantly attacked. Conversation choices are almost completely meaningless, there are no checks other than Charisma checks, but even thouse mean very little. All you can do is ask for more caps, which are not hard to come by at all anyway.

I've enjoyed Skyrim a lot, there were just so many places you could go to and things to do and to be, there was so much variety in that game that you could overlook all the writing problems. FO4 though just doesn't have the same magic because it feels like the only things you can do in the game are killing stuff, crafting and the settlement building Minecraft which I don't enjoy that much, and then killing more stuff. Oh, and collecting junk .

I imagine for people that enjoy pure shooter games none of the things I mention are a problem at all, FO4 delivers a very good shooter experience. There are some positive things in FO4, like vastly improved companions. I really expected more from this game though.

A discussion on the definition of what is and isn't role-playing has been going on since the first die hit the table.

It's a fairly standard break in table top games to find those that focus on the mechanics behind their character (min/maxers, tacticians) and those that may feel more at home in a writers or amateur dramatics group. There's no right or wrong to this answer and anyone who has had the unenviable position of trying to provide an enjoyable experience to both sets of players at a gaming table may have a glimpse into the dance Bethesda have to do.

For many being able to play dress-up with their avatar is as much about roleplaying as any conversation/ tactical choices they might make.

Problem as I see it, is that no matter you roleplay your character as those types, all quests will roughly play out the same, with very little variation nor impact on the world or your relation to it. So the replayiability for me, lacks.

Comparing individual works of art, has nothing to do with evaluating an episode within the context of a serie. I wouldn't dare compare Mona Lisa vs The café terrace on the place du forum. Regarding Fallout, I would at least expect that they somewhat resembles the other games. Alas, in my opinion at least, there is little left of it. Even the quirky humour is sparse, and hard to come by. I guess, my feeling with FO4, is one of a generic game without much inspiration, and thus, makes for a bland experience in the RPG parts of the game. Sure there is some gems here and there, but when everything else feels shallow for me, they fall apart, because the game doesn't give a coherent RPG feel, let alone, that most desicions on my part, have little to none impact regarding the ending of the game.

Pretty ironic post, and also a good deal of strawman. You can't decide on your own regarding peoples opinions, whether they are right or wrong.

Anyways, we all have opinions. And that's fine, as it should be. And games can't cater to all, I get that. I've put in the hours and enjoyed it for the most part, for what it is. So I've got my money worth, but I will be pretty reluctant whether I want the DLC's or not. Time (e.g. reviews) will tell I guess.

I was all about the season pass before FO4 was released, but that was based on having a decent platform to base those DLC on. Now I'm the same boat as you, I'm very sceptic about getting the DLC, at least until I've seen what it's all about and if it makes an effort to improve the base game or just add more things to shoot up.

I love the game and I've already bought the Season Pass. Bethesda are known to make a point of offering good sized dlc rather than money grabbing little gimmicks, so I am looking forward to what they offer. I am guessing the stats as to the sales of both the game and also the Season Pass would determine if the game has appealed to the wider gaming audience. I'd be amazed if it hasn't. The reviews are high, as is the amount of video and cover on sits like Youtube.

So was I, regarding the season pass. Now I figured, I'd rather wait and see where they take the game. Whether it wants to be a shooter, or a RPG. They could have had both, tho, if they wanted to put the time into it and perhaps hire some good writers. Without having any facts, so it is pure speculations on my part, it feels like they wanted the game out for the season.

Okay, well, let me explain to you what Options are(and what we are complaining about):

First, I will go over the quests you listed:

Kill X, Kill Y, Kill nobody: Option that decides outcome: Charisma.

Kid quest is different(because obviously) So you can Sell X, Reunite X. Not sure if Charisma plays a role or not, I haven't done it(but it probably does to get more caps).

MQ: Kill X, Kill Y, Kill Z; Kill X; Kill X and Kill Y.

Every options in say not killing anyone, like in Drumlin Diner, Big Dig, is a Charisma check and Charisma check only.

The options we are talking about are...options, and in this case, not just deciding who to kill, but HOW we solve said quest, yep...not just using Charisma, and having options that result in not just who we kill. So, Charisma has become not just the deciding factor, but the OP Special Stat and limits RPing, as with a low Charisma score, you will fail the vast majority of Charisma checks, and you have no other option. Can you intimidate with Strength? Can you outsmart with Intelligence? Can you confuse by being dumb? Can you just 'Get Lucky'? We can no longer use skills to decide on outcomes(science, medic, stealth, pickpocket, lockpicking, etc), but the kicker is WE CAN'T USE PERKS to decide outcomes Either, UNLESS it is the CHARISMA PERK Lady Killer/Black Widow.........

THAT is what Choices are. Branching and alternative, and sometimes UNIQUE ways to complete a quest, which in a way simulates a tabletop RPG where the players come up with a solution the GM hadn't thought of, in this case, BGS is supposed to come up with as many solutions as possible without getting bogged down from a design stand point, to represent this. In doing so it increases the believe ability in the game world, simulates real life scenarios(real life for the FO World), and assists with players who are toying with different builds and ways to complete quests.

I will give an example what I mean about Choices, using a FO 4 quest, the V 81 cure quest:

Anyway, THAT is choices, which assists various character builds, utilizes various Perks or Special stats, and can lead to different outcomes, in a fairly cut and dry quest(especially interesting what they could then do with the evil option).

Hopefully this has cleared it up what we mean by Choices in our RPG games, and why we are upset with FO 4 and the lack of them.

Console games sell more. Those of us who remember the days when games were PC only will continue to be disappointed. Consoles impose so many limits that devs simply cant makes games like they used to. Fallout, Battlefield, its always the same story.

Firstly, I do agree that the player's voice isn't all that good. I don't dislike it though. BUT I really wish Bethesda didn't do that.

Secondly, the things you say, actions, and moral choices actually do have an impact on the game's world in little ways, just like the real world. Unlike in New Vegas, that a lot of people seem to love. There's usually not that many changes made in the world of New Vegas... Hell, I can't think of any and I am really trying to because I do love playing New Vegas. (I'm not counting the ending slides because they just tell you what happens afterwards. I'm talking about actual changes to the game world itself because of what you have done while playing the game). For example, there's an NPC in Diamond City in Fallout 4 that is having issues and he might ask you for help. If you say no and go about your business, you'll find him later on dead because he tried to do something without your help.

You also mention having little to no choice... Which I can agree with to a point but can understand as well. MQ wise, it makes sense why you'll end up being a mass murderer, as you put it. Because the issues between the factions cannot be solved peacefully. In New Vegas, you can use charisma on the faction leaders to get them to leave the Mojave Wasteland but that's only a temporally effect. They will be back and there will be more bloodshed, and in the end, your character might have to kill them. In Fallout 4, it's a little bit different because you cannot simply tell the factions (except for the BoS) to leave the Commonwealth. It's either bloodshed or destroy really.

Now, when it comes to other quests... There are alternatives you can do in order to change the outcome in some side quests in Fallout 4. But I wouldn't really say it is as many as New Vegas's possible outcomes. Then again, New Vegas didn't really have that many outcomes. It's usually boils down to three main choices. This Faction, That Faction, or Help Yourself/Both Factions.

I would say in regards to the SPECIAL system, it doesn't help you "specialize" your character as one thing or help with role play. You are right, in that it doesn't actually do anything in game, except for Charisma.

Mainly this is because the perk levels have character levels as requirement, so even if you are trying for a "specific build" in mind, You will hit a level cap wall, and with getting perks every level, have a bunch of perk points you can put into other stuff, or just increase your SPECIAL more. I have no problem, for example, having a character early on, by level 20 or so, who has good lockpicking, computer hacking, a maxed out combat skill(whichever I decide to kill with) and crafting skills maxed to level cap. No problems at all. On my character I even got to play around with gimick perks like Idiot Savant, and I while waiting for level caps I got to add bonus perks like Action Boy, Crit Banker, Better Crits, Local Leader. I've also gone several levels where I have 3-4 perks saved up. So, it isn't very restrictive(as long as you pick one way to kill and stick with it, if you try to be a jack of all killing then you will hit problems). Level 35 or so and now I'm just taking perks for the hell of it until level caps break.

Basically, it isn't hard to specialize in multiple things.

its not a rpg at all? i got news for you, rpgs have evolved, apparently fallout 4 isn't for you so just move on, saying things like "fallout isn't a real rpg" is really inconsequential, and pointless, it doesn't matter how you define it, the gaming world has redefined what rpgs are, they're more of a hybrid type of game, so maybe its best you stick with fallout 1 and 2 instead of coming on a fallout 4 thread to just endlessley complain about fallout 4 not being a real rpg, just move on.

Demonstrably false if you look at other members on these forums such as myself and John Henry Eden.

I started with Fallout 3, so Bethesda was my first Fallout company and the "nostalgia" claim has been bs on these forums from the moment it was mentioned. I played Fallout 2 more recently than Fallout 3 or New Vegas, but my nostalgia from the day or two prior to Fallout 4 must have been why I think it's an awful game, right?

Edit: My issue with Fallout 4 is that it's presentation is as much an RPG as the Far Cry series at this point when it comes to character stats and combat. It doesn't even compare to Skyrim which I found extremely lacking in the dialogue, writing, character system and RPG mechanics departments.

Absolutely cannot stand the writing people's opinions off as nothing because of "nostalgia".

I'm not going to win any support by saying this, and I'm not saying you're 'dumb' (because I don't know you at all). But nobody believes they're truly 'dumb' or that they represent the lowest common denominator, primarily because people require a functioning ego to live and it's much easier to seek 'self serving motivated reasoning', in other words to live in denial than accept something that would destroy your ego.

Just as an anecdote, how many people have you seen admit that they are 'dumb' and truly meant it?You notice it on these forums, whenever someone creates a 'what's your real life special?' thread, very few people have a score below 5 in their intelligence, as a society we value intelligence too much to ever admit that we may lack it ourselves (above average effect).

Again i'm not saying you're dumb, but if there's a continuum or a gradient to intelligence, then by definition there has to be a lowest common denominator.When we also consider that Bethesda makes notoriously easy games, with unlimited freedom that you can never really fail, it would seem logical to posit that Bethesda makes games for this demography.

A youngin at age 33. Loved FO3 (what got me in the series) and love FONV (up there as one of my most loved RPGs). I like FO1 & 2 but neither really gripped me so I haven't been able to come close to finishing either and doubt I will with my backlog.

People have different scratches that need scratched and unfortunately FO4 doesn't scratch what I need scratched and I love FO3 lmfao.

I appreciate the advances they have made (seriously in all the games, this is the first time a mole rat felt threatening lol) in the combat area and graphics and I also wanna commend them for what I think nailing the PA down pat. Seriously first time I felt it was true to lore.

But this is the first Bethesda game that hasn't gripped me. FONV and FO3 felt like an open world RPGs whereas playing FO4 I can't get over this feeling of playing borderlands in a fallout setting with some building sims thrown in. They focused to much on the action part and feels like they really skimped on the roleplaying parts. Apparently even Bethesda agrees because the games label says it's an open world exploration game and didn't put in rpg on it.

But that's just me, I'm happy for everyone who is enjoying it. I just wish I could as well but it just doesn't scratch the things I like (story, restricted stats, c&c, etc).



Edit-also for those arguing about if FO4 is a rpg, nowhere on the box does it even call itself that. Just "next generation of open-world gaming"....

I agree, they could easily have had both, which would have been awesome. I don't think it's a lack of time question, though, since they had 7 years. I'm fairly certain it's a conscious choice, which also means they won't be correcting it in the DLC and we'll more than likely just get more of the same. Since we're talking about core mechanics, I don't even think mods will be able to fix it entirely since there's only so much you can do.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I'm doing it right now. I did, though, see a mod that eliminates the level requirement for perks, which is interesting to me. It would allow you to go the direct route to exactly who you want to be, essentially being able to hit lvl 4 Gun Nut, or whatever, by lvl 4. I want to try that, because it definitely let's you be who you want to be more than the Vanilla route does, but it may also completely break the game and make you so overpowered that it's not even funny. It will definitely require a certain level of self restraint, which I think I can handle =)

Exactly, they could of had both. Thing is, branching story line, choices and consequences, options, etc, all it does is require more work/thought. I don't like using the word "lazy", but it is a hell of a lot easier to just skip all that and create what we got. That is just common sense, what is easier, making every option in the game dependent on Charisma OR giving options for other special stats and perks?

I wonder how much of this is lost because of a Voiced protagonist, because giving more options kinda, sorta would require more dialogue...maybe. For example, when you act like a "hard ass" in game, it still uses Charisma(instead of say Strength or Toughness perk or a viable combat perk). Doesn't really make sense of a hard ass to be using "charisma" to get his hard point across.

Anyway, point is, the voiced dialogue could have remained the same, it just used something else. Of course, you would need more dialogue when we got into actual options, and that is where this whole voiced protagonist could have cost us, unfortunately(or maybe not, is/was BGS 'hurting' for money, what with all they made from Skyrim and all, and FO 3, and Oblivion?).

I'll believe that our society gives intelligence anything other than lip service when we routinely pay scientists more than athletes.

Have you ever considered that highly intelligent people might want to play recreational games too?

The Fallout 4 I wanted was in the style of the first two games in the series