Fallout 4 critique: The abortion of RPG mechanics (Self posted, looking for suggestions)
313 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49365551]The idea that ONLY ONE OF US can have ideas that are BOTH 1) RPG mechanics and 2) a benefit to the gamer is what bugs me.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about?
I think it has been explained in great detail how this hurts the RPG mechanics. I am amazed and never expected to be this much fuss over this. I mean the video in the OP clearly explains how this hurt the RPG mechanics and so many fanboys are still butthurt over such a clear and cut argument.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49365185]Me, Abyss and others in this thread are being smart and critical about Fallout 4.
Metist and Sub-Zero are just insulting us and calling us "casuals" like we're on /v/ or something.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49365197]Also let's not forget that someone in this thread took some of our posts to /v/ for the exact purpose of agreeing that we're the idiots for not agreeing with them that ALL of Fallout 4 is bad, as opposed to only some of it not being good.[/QUOTE]
Ok, you can stop posting now, you're literally just riding your high horse and your posts add nothing to the climate of the debate any more.[QUOTE=Pantz Master;49365534]Just take the sad excuses for the guild questlines in Skyrim. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that the College of Winterhold is one of the most pathetic attempts I've ever seen at writing a questline. It's literally 9 quests, including the quest to "Visit the College of Winterhold". The Companions was arguably worse, with only 6 quests in the whole questline (plus 1 shitty radiant quest). Not only this, but both of them were written terribly. You go from joining the guild to completing high level "do or die" type quests without ever feeling any sense of progression.[/QUOTE]
This is by far my biggest pet peeve with beth games, you do like ~10 quests over the span of maybe one in game month and they crown you the leader/general over literally everyone else in that faction they all seem ok with it, then you just roll out and never look back (will probably replace or never use that quest reward anyway because you can craft better). I'm surprised that BoS is basically the only faction you never gain anything more than an honorary title.
[QUOTE=Metist;49365734]What are you talking about?
I think it has been explained in great detail how this hurts the RPG mechanics. I am amazed and never expected to be this much fuss over this. I mean the video in the OP clearly explains how this hurt the RPG mechanics and so many fanboys are still butthurt over such a clear and cut argument.[/QUOTE]
1) I'm not even a fanboy? I regularly have said this game has many problems. Enjoyment =/= Fanboyism
How it hurt them in A SUBJECTIVE CONTEXT. AGAIN, You are not the arbiter of what "RPG" mechanics means, is defined as, or functions as.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49365834]1) I'm not even a fanboy? I regularly have said this game has many problems. Enjoyment =/= Fanboyism
How it hurt them in A SUBJECTIVE CONTEXT. AGAIN, You are not the arbiter of what "RPG" mechanics means, is defined as, or functions as.[/QUOTE]
Except it's not subjective.
How does limiting the voice options of your character not hurt your ability to role play?
Seriously, that is pretty simple and easy to grasp.
[QUOTE=Metist;49365864]Except it's not subjective.
How does limiting the voice options of your character not hurt your ability to role play?
Seriously, that is pretty simple and easy to grasp.[/QUOTE]
Dude, seriously, stop it. I have repeatedly said the dialogue options are worse. How much harder do I have to agree with you on one element and disagree with you on others.
Dialogue isn't the only element of the RPG there. Yes, part of it was dumbed down, but the largest dumbing down of the system was actually the step from F2 to F3. The RPG element beyond the dialogue is definitely subjective as to how it affects the RPG experience but you've repeatedly made it clear that it's your way or the high way.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49365895]Dude, seriously, stop it. I have repeatedly said the dialogue options are worse. [/QUOTE]
Then why are you saying they are subjective complaints?
It is definitely an RPG mechanic and taking it out objectively hurts the RPG aspect of the game.
Oh and no level cap is pretty clearly hurting the RPG mechanics since it takes out the usefulness of stat management. Same with stats not being as important like strength with carrying weight.
[QUOTE=Metist;49365920]Then why are you saying they are subjective complaints?
It is definitely an RPG mechanic and taking it out objectively hurts the RPG aspect of the game.
Oh and no level cap is pretty clearly hurting the RPG mechanics since it takes out the usefulness of stat management. Same with stats not being as important like strength with carrying weight.[/QUOTE]
having to reach level 270 to be a "Full power" character is definitely a subjective argument...
No level cap is only a problem if it's coupled with fast progression. With Bethesda games it's not too bad, but the run of the mill "open world" RPGs like Far Cry and Shadow of Mordor are where it's ridiculous. You only have to do a few sidequests and you have every perk in the game before you finish the main story.
[QUOTE=Metist;49365920]Then why are you saying they are subjective complaints?
It is definitely an RPG mechanic and taking it out objectively hurts the RPG aspect of the game.
Oh and no level cap is pretty clearly hurting the RPG mechanics since it takes out the usefulness of stat management. Same with stats not being as important like strength with carrying weight.[/QUOTE]
There are many objective things about a game, but that is absolutely a subjective one.
as for no level cap, or even an extremely huge level cap isn't bad. Dark souls max level is over level 700, which is 99 in every stat. Just because level 100 and 120 have nearly no immediate difference in effectiveness it doesn't make levels unimportant. Some stats are arguably useless too, it's still a very effective RPG, and imho so is fallout 4
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49365834]How it hurt them in A SUBJECTIVE CONTEXT. AGAIN, You are not the arbiter of what "RPG" mechanics means, is defined as, or functions as.[/QUOTE]
Fallout as an RPG already has established mechanics and while previous games have deviated from these mechanics the general framework was relatively consistent. Essentially the basic character mechanics of Fallout are derived from three areas: SPECIAL, Skills and Perks. Traits are an added but optional bonus but are not as significant (though they can certainly be gamechanging) as the other three.
Fallout 4 makes significant changes to all three of these areas. Let me explain:
SPECIAL: In every previous Fallout game, characters had 33 points to spend on SPECIAL at character creation with each statistic having a minimum level of 1 and a maximum level of 10. You could get one stat to 10 and have every other stat at 5 or you could raise and lower your stats to create a more nuanced character. The important thing is that your SPECIAL was more or less set in stone at character creation and while there were ways to increase your SPECIAL through items in the game world (Memory Modules, Bobbleheads, Implants) and perks (Gain and Intensive Training), these were relatively uncommon and, in the case of perks, took away from your ability to purchase a more useful perk. By contrast, in Fallout 4 you start with only 21 SPECIAL points (enough to raise every stat to 4) and are expected to raise them as you level up. In this way it means your character is less defined from the beginning and more of a blank slate as you "upgrade in" to perk requirements and SPECIAL levels. This isn't something I liked with Fallout 4 and doesn't feel much like Fallout to me where your character can be defined from the beginning and become more nuanced as you develop your skills and perks.
Skills: Skills aren't removed exactly from Fallout 4 but they are merged with perks. Iron Fist, Big Leagues, Armorer/Blacksmith/Gun Nut/Scrapper, Heavy Gunner/Rifleman/Gunslinger/Commando, Pickpocket, Locksmith, Demolition Expert, Cap Collector, Medic, Hacker/Science! and Sneak are all comparable to skills from the previous games (in order: Unarmed, Melee, Repair, Guns & Energy Weapons, Steal, Lockpick, Explosives, Barter, Medicine, Science and Stealth) and typically merged with some perks from the previous games (for instance, as you rank up Sneak you also get the benefits of the Light Step and Silent Running perks, as well as eventually Hide in Plain Sight from Skyrim), however the way they allow your character to interact with quests is significantly reduced when compared to New Vegas. Your "skill" perks in FO4 generally affect the way your game plays but they never offer any kind of unique solution to a quest. For example, you can't use your ranks in Medic or Science! to replicate the mole rat disease antidote, you can't use your ranks in Cap Collector to pay off the dealers during Diamond City Blues, you can't use your rank in Intimidation to force an enemy to surrender without a fight (you can do this in regular gameplay, but it doesn't affect the quest - you'll still have to kill them after they surrender). The reduced way which perks affect the quests mean that your character doesn't feel as distinct. There's a few instances where raw Charisma and at least one instance for Intelligence where this can affect the outcome of a quest, but it's very rare and isn't implemented for other perks like it should be.
The last thing is Perks and while at first it feels good that every level brings an interesting character choice in Fallout 4 it comes at the cost of any kind of interesting character development. Many of your perks will have to be devoted to raising SPECIAL, taking obligatory crafting-related or weapon-related perks and so you don't actually have that many points to send on more interesting perks like Penetrator or Gun Fu. The point of perks is to add nuance to your character but in Fallout 4 you have to spend many of your perks simply developing the core abilities of your character and, like I mentioned previously, the perks never have any noticeable impact on the way you can resolve quests, like they should. My character in Fallout 4 right now is level 45 and I barely have any kind of interesting perks as most of my choices have had to be dedicated to raising SPECIAL, taking crafting and settlement related perks and maxing out Gunslinger.
I wrote this all in one go so it might not be very coherent, but this is why I think that Fallout 4 is a step back (an abortion, if you really feel dramatic) in regards to the RPG mechanics within the Fallout series.
I wouldn't disagree that in terms of sticking with old mechanics it stepped back but by and large perks was and is a better system than what was devised for F3 and FNV.
I don't want games to stick to the same exact things they always have. I'm okay with them trying new things. Hopefully they find a better way and learn from their mistakes rather than stagnant
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49366499]but by and large perks was and is a better system than what was devised for F3 and FNV.[/QUOTE]
Here's the thing, and the reason why I think the perk system is inferior to what we had before: most perks are just obligatory crafting, settlement or damage related perks, or otherwise things which would have been skills in previous games. I explained this a bit in my previous post, but I'll go into more detail using my level 45 character as an example:
My character is level 45, which means I have 44 perk points distributed throughout the perk chart. Out of all of these, I can count on one hand the perks which I consider to actually change the way my game plays in some way rather than simply being obligatory upgrades I had to take: Strong Back II (Extra carry weight, this was also a perk in previous games), Inspirational II (Companions deal more damage, take less damage and my attacks ignore them. This is similar to Companion Nerve from NV as well as the Spray 'n Pray perk from the same game), Intimidating II and Robotics Expert. If you want to count multiple ranks then it's 7, otherwise it's 4.
So what are my other 37 perk points spent on? They are spent on crafting related perks, increasing weapon damage (which seems to be essentially mandatory on the difficulty I'm playing), boosting my sneak ability, gaining the ability to pick locks and hack terminals, getting improved prices from merchants, getting the ability to build shops and set up supply lines between settlements, the ability to scrap items for resources, slightly improving my fusion core duration and gamma weapon damage and raising my SPECIAL. The majority of these things are things which, in previous games, would've been covered by my skill point choices rather than taking way from my perk choices.
Crafting: A variety of skills in New Vegas (mainly Repair, Science and Survival) covered this,
Weapon Damage: Weapon skills covered this,
Sneak: The Stealth skill covered this,
Lockpicking and Hacking: The lockpick and science skill covered this,
Prices: The barter skill covered this,
Scrapping items for resources: Again, the various crafting skills (Repair, Science and Survival) covered this.
This leaves us with: Settlement supply lines (essentially a mandatory perk if you want to participate in the settlement building minigame), improving fusion core duration and gamma weapon damage (these are both new to Fallout 4, but the latter would probably be tied to the energy weapons skill while fusion core duration would likely be based on science) and increasing my SPECIAL (which, because of the lowered SPECIAL points at character creation, went from being an expensive way to boost your stats (at the cost of a perk) to a necessary way to qualify for perks.
So despite being level 44, my character barely feels nuanced at all when it comes to perks. I can carry a little bit more, my companions are a little bit better and I can disable human and robotic enemies. The majority of my perk points are spent on things which skills would cover before or on raising my SPECIAL to a level that makes my character actually defined (though I can always raise them even more, meaning this level is actually quite arbitrary). And while there are some perks that add nuance to your character in some way (Blitz, Gun Fu, Rooted, Penetrator, etc.), you have to spend alot of your perks on basic things. My characters in previous fallout games, by comparison, had every perk typically making some kind of notable impact on the game or adding nuance to my character. Then there's, again, the problem that none of the perks in FO4 have any real impact on quests - there's no applying your characters knowledge to find new solutions to problems you encounter.
What results isn't a system where my character feels special or developed (at least for the first 45 levels, which is a long time) but instead quite generic by Fallout standards, with very few defining perks. In other words, Bethesda's "all perks" system actually makes my character less interesting than they would be in Fallout 2 or New Vegas, where skills and a higher base SPECIAL define the other two-thirds of my character, rather than having all three blended together into a perk chart.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49366499]I don't want games to stick to the same exact things they always have. I'm okay with them trying new things. Hopefully they find a better way and learn from their mistakes rather than stagnant[/QUOTE]
Definitely games should not stick with the old just because of tradition, but in this case I think we lost more than we gained with Bethesda's new character system. I haven't even talked about the voiced protagonist, backstory, quests or any of the other problems (I have) with Fallout 4, just the one I consider to be the most important: the character building. Just because it's a new system doesn't mean it's better than the old one.
[editline]22nd December 2015[/editline]
help i don't know how to make my posts concise
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49366499]
I'm okay with them trying new things. Hopefully they find a better way and learn from their mistakes rather than stagnant[/QUOTE]
That's where I will disagree heavily. The way RPG progression mechanics work in Fo4 is not a "mistake", it's a deliberate attempt at making something new without actually doing any work, and I can't welcome such a mindset. It's half-assed. Let's make SPECIAL matter and perks be more useful and immediate in gameplay! Oh wait, it requires research and design, so let's instead streamline the whole progression into one screen instead of two! And we'll keep all of the annoying concepts of the previous games, like flat damage/accuracy (in VATS) increase! Thanks at least for not turning guns into bullet hoses if you have low skill in using them this time around...
If Bethesda genuinely made something new and it didn't work for some reason, I would not have problems with it and share your sentiment that maybe they'll improve next time. But we have a low-effort attempt at masquerading the old system with bells and whistles (literally too, as perk images now make annoying sounds, innovation!). The same kind of low-effort as the main story, quests, right down to really badly implemented Vertibirds. I really don't think this kind of approach deserves any appreciation or sympathy.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49366249]There are many objective things about a game, but that is absolutely a subjective one.
[/QUOTE]
Except an RPG is about player choice while lowering dialog options lowers choice.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49365227]Well you did called Abyss a casual :v:
.[/QUOTE]
But he is, kek.
[QUOTE=Metist;49366805]Except an RPG is about player choice while lowering dialog options lowers choice.[/QUOTE]
And dark souls has 0 dialogue choices, and yet it's one of the most highly regarded RPG's of recent times. Though, that isn't entirely fair, as it focuses extremely heavily on combat, rather than an array of things.
RPG's don't really have to depend on having a huge array of choices. You play a role. Some games have a massive number of choices, some do not. Bioshock is an extremely heavily regarded RPGFPS and there were only 2 choices in the game, good or bad. And one of the biggest RPG's of recent, the Witcher 3, usually only really gives you two, [B]maybe [/B]three choices if you're really lucky, many of which don't even matter, all while no less giving no choice in who you play and only 1 fighting style (Sword with magic for assistance)
[QUOTE=Glent;49366681]Here's the thing, and the reason why I think the perk system is inferior to what we had before: most perks are just obligatory crafting, settlement or damage related perks, or otherwise things which would have been skills in previous games. I explained this a bit in my previous post, but I'll go into more detail using my level 45 character as an example:
rest of post...> [/QUOTE]
One of most decent posts in the thread, compared to the shitshow of an argument of 4 babies shown in the last pair of pages.
[editline]22nd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=J!NX;49366834]And dark souls has 0 dialogue choices, and yet it's one of the most highly regarded RPG's of recent times. Though, that isn't entirely fair, as it focuses extremely heavily on combat, rather than an array of things.
RPG's don't really have to depend on having a huge array of choices. You play a role. Some games have a massive number of choices, some do not. Bioshock is an extremely heavily regarded RPGFPS and there were only 2 choices in the game, good or bad. Witcher 3 usually only really gives you two, maybe three choices if you're really lucky.[/QUOTE]
Dark Souls is an rpg as much as diablo 2 is an rpg.
What? Since when Bioshock is an rpg? this is literally a half life game in different setting (talking genre and mechanics wise)
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49366840]
Dark Souls is an rpg as much as diablo 2 is an rpg.[/QUOTE]
what does this even mean
[QUOTE=J!NX;49366846]what does this even mean[/QUOTE]
Now correct me if im wrong since I didnt play Dark Souls games properly, but it looks literally 3rd Person Diablo. Diablo and Dark Souls are not Rpgs in classic sense, they are more action games with character progression (hence why Diablo is called a hack n slash).
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49366840]One of most decent posts in the thread, compared to the shitshow of an argument of 4 babies shown in the last pair of pages.
[editline]22nd December 2015[/editline]
Dark Souls is an rpg as much as diablo 2 is an rpg.
What? Since when Bioshock is an rpg? this is literally a half life game in different setting (talking genre and mechanics wise)[/QUOTE]
bioshock has has really light RPG aspects (Upgrades for plasmids and weapons, something very untypical of shooters). It's a very minor RPG if anything, but it has the elements.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49366846]what does this even mean[/QUOTE]
It means there's more than one kind of RPG. Some focus more heavily only on combat-oriented progression, some - on freedom of approach and character-building. In many fans' minds, Fallout belongs to the second group.
Also, progression RPG-like elements don't necessarily mean the game can be called an RPG. Far Cry has progression elements, so do games of Saints Row franchise. No one in their right mind would call those games "action-RPG".
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49366858]Now correct me if im wrong since I didnt play Dark Souls games properly, but it looks literally 3rd Person Diablo. Diablo and Dark Souls are not Rpgs in classic sense, they are more [B]action games with character progression[/B] (hence why Diablo is called a hack n slash).[/QUOTE]
thats literally the definition of an action RPG, good god, what? Character progression is the entire point :v:
and dark souls is very much different from diablo but ok I guess, I've not really played diablo but
RPG is a nebulous term so to see people define it so rigidly and arbitrarily is funny
[QUOTE=J!NX;49366880]thats literally the definition of an action RPG, good god, what?
and dark souls is very much different from diablo[/QUOTE]
on mobile so i wont fuck with proper quoting ok
1) See gudwins post above. exactly my point
2) in which way? different combat system, but other than that, there is no dialogue, no questing, no choices? Similar to diablo in that regard there is only character progression which you can find even in military shooters. Is Battlefield rpg now?
[editline]22nd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49366888]RPG is a nebulous term so to see people define it so rigidly and arbitrarily is funny[/QUOTE]
If you want to argue semantics, all games are RPGs because [i]you play a role[/i]
what are we going to do next
call ourselves the definers of a genre and claim that shadow of mordor isn't an RPG because you can't choose who your character is or what he does next? Call it "Not an RPG in the classic sense"
from what I remember Diablo created a new style of gameplay, isn't it considered a classic amoungst rpgs?
should we call fallout "Not a classic" because it doesn't have D&D rules?
what is a "Classic sense" in a genre so broad and wide as an RPG?
like
what
this is obscene, I can't believe this is even being thought of
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49366906]on mobile so i wont fuck with proper quoting ok
1) See gudwins post above. exactly my point
2) in which way? different combat system, but other than that, there is no dialogue, no questing, no choices? Similar to diablo in that regard there is only character progression which you can find even in military shooters. Is Battlefield rpg now?[/QUOTE]
In battlefield you aren't playing a role and you can't interact with the world. In Bioshock you are playing a role and you can interact with the world, and progress as a character, and make choices. Battlefield has similar progression you'd find in stalker, where you unlock better gear as you go along, only it has ranks attached to it.
and how the fuck is dark souls not a "normal" rpg? Literally the entire game is based around the concept of building a character around many different roles and choices and progressing your skills as a character. It's not ranking up and unlocking new gear, it's progressing the character that you play and interacting with a world while playing the role of 'the chosen undead'.
I'm blown away.
[editline]22nd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49366906]
If you want to argue semantics, all games are RPGs because [i]you play a role[/i][/QUOTE]
The only person I see arguing semantics is you. I don't see how the definition of a genre that's already clearly set in stone should actually matter.
[editline]22nd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=gudman;49366877]It means there's more than one kind of RPG. Some focus more heavily only on combat-oriented progression, some - on freedom of approach and character-building. In many fans' minds, Fallout belongs to the second group.[/QUOTE]
this makes a lot more sense to say all things considered
[QUOTE=gudman;49366877]
Also, progression RPG-like elements don't necessarily mean the game can be called an RPG. Far Cry has progression elements, so do games of Saints Row franchise. No one in their right mind would call those games "action-RPG".[/QUOTE]
No doubt. progression elements don't really make a game an RPG, that's more a matter of playing a character who has a set goal and aims to achieve it, as well as interacting in the world in ways that a linear game wouldn't really have.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49366925]what are we going to do next
call ourselves the definers of a genre and claim that shadow of mordor isn't an RPG because you can't choose who your character is or what he does next? Call it "Not an RPG in the classic sense"
from what I remember Diablo created a new style of gameplay, isn't it considered a classic amoungst rpgs?
should we call fallout "Not a classic" because it doesn't have D&D rules?
what is a "Classic sense" in a genre so broad and wide as an RPG?
like
what
this is obscene, I can't believe this is even being thought of[/QUOTE]
I also can't believe this is being brought up. No one said that Diablo is not an RPG. What is being talked about, is that there're pretty well formed groups of games within RPG genre. They're not rigid, they're pretty arbitrary, but as far as defining features go, it's pretty straight-forward. Player character in Dark Souls (and in Diablo, for that matter) is not a character per se, it's something of an avatar. It doesn't possess a [b]character[/b].
On the other hand, Fallout games for the most part have allowed you to develop a PERSONALITY of player character (please don't go "but I can make up a backstory and personality for my Dark Souls character in my imagination!", just please don't) and the game allows you to act according to it. You have more control over your character, beyond just defining a set of characteristics they possess.
Sure RPG is a nebulous term, Abyss is absolutely right, but one can easily define subgroups within that umbrella-term. I think some fans are justified in their dislike of Fallout being nudged from one such group to another.
Them being different types of RPGs doesn't change that they are both RPGs
I mean it's really subjective like I've always said but there's lots of elements of what an RPG really is and lots of ways to represent player characterization and choice, and impact on the world.
[editline]22nd December 2015[/editline]
Oh didn't see your edit
[QUOTE=gudman;49366989]I also can't believe this is being brought up. No one said that Diablo is not an RPG. What is being talked about, is that there're pretty well formed groups of games within RPG genre. They're not rigid, they're pretty arbitrary, but as far as defining features go, it's pretty straight-forward. Player character in Dark Souls (and in Diablo, for that matter) is not a character per se, it's something of an avatar. It doesn't possess a [b]character[/b].
On the other hand, Fallout games for the most part have allowed you to develop a PERSONALITY of player character (please don't go "but I can make up a backstory and personality for my Dark Souls character in my imagination!", just please don't) and the game allows you to act according to it. You have more control over your character, beyond just defining a set of characteristics they possess.
You can't with a straight face tell me that these features on their own don't make Fallout:NV and Dark Souls different kind of games, even if we imagine that there're no other differences.[/QUOTE]
there we go, this makes a LOT more sense to say, since there is no such thing as a "Classic sense" of what an RPG is, it's a very 'up in the air' definition. Calling them "Action games with progession" is just way off.
I do agree though, and I did say Dark souls isn't entirely a fair example though, which it isn't. The game pretty much worries itself with combat and that's it. Fallout 4 is a bit different, since yeah it's way more than just stabbing the shit out of skellies.
to reply to earlier posts though, The changes to fallout 4 do 'hurt' the 'normal fallout style RPG'ness of it, but it definitly doesn't hurt the 'rpgness' of it like others may come to believe. Being a character and playing one are two very different things, witcher 3 does both, in dark souls you only play a character, and in fallout 1/2/3/etc you be them. Hell, look at stalker, it's considered an RPG even though the character progression is 100% gear based. Like witcher 3, you are a defined character, and that's that. Same with Shadow of Mordor. Doesn't really make F4 any less of an RPG to play less of your own character really.
Jinx, quit making an ass out of yourself, I am not elaborating my points (thanks to gudman for that, he pretty much said what i meant) due to me being on mobile at work
there are games with rpg elements which does not define them as pure rpg, and the reason a lot of people are moaning that fallout 4 is a failure is because of that, they feel that fallout 4 degenerated from rpg game with shooter elements to shooter game with rpg elements.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49367016]
to reply to earlier posts though, The changes to fallout 4 do 'hurt' the 'normal fallout style RPG'ness of it, but it definitly doesn't hurt the 'rpgness' of it like others may come to believe. [/QUOTE]
I'd say it kind of hurts the "Fallout'ness" of Fallout 4, rather than its "RPG'ness", I think that would be appropriate. Example: the Sole Survivor could've easily had a proper name (like Shepard, for example), as it is its own 'defined' character, albeit bland, uninteresting, unevolving one, generally badly written one. There's no reason to refer to Fo4's PC by a title other than tradition.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.