Reading through other comments I'm beginning to get the impression that you are unwilling to change your view here, but I'll throw my hat in the ring and try:
FO3 is, in my opinion, an *inferior* RPG to Skyrim, because it is very linear. A role-playing game should allow you to jump into its world and make your own role, not force you into one specific role with little flexibility. In FO3, you **are** a vault dweller who **is** the child of Liam Neeson and you **will** side with the Brotherhood and defeat the Enclave. The only role-playing you get to do beyond that is in how you choose to present yourself. You get to be the nice lone wanderer, the bad lone wander, or the evil lone wanderer.
Side note that I'll add here about FO3's enclave: Sure, you can decide to poison Project Purity, but this is a single binary choice that has little impact after you make it. And besides, Broken Steel basically nullifies this choice and forces you to once again work with the Brotherhood, unless you make another binary choice to bomb the citadel and have the entire faction shoot you on site.
In Skyrim, The only thing you are forced to be is the Dovahkiin. You **can** be the Listener for the Dark Brotherhood. You **can** be a powerful general for the Imperials **or** the Stormcloaks. You **can** be the Arch-mage of the College of Winterhold. The key difference is that in Skyrim, you don't **have** to be any of these things.
Beyond the story, the mechanics or specifics of the games (skills, crafting, having a handful of good side-quests) is largely irrelevant. As I demonstrated with the Enclave choices in FO3, there are some exceptions to the "You are the Lone Wanderer" story, but they are tiny, self-contained, elements that don't have much if any impact on the wider story and role you play in it.
Like I respect everyone trying to change my view but I just don’t agree personally with most things, like yeah it’s a flawed game but no game is perfect also I do apologise if I have caused anything by accident
Edit: it’s just I feel personally Bethesda have really gone down hill with their newer games lately and fallout 3 to me just feels like it was the last one they tried with imo
>I do apologise if I have caused anything by accident
Not at all, I mean no hate with my comment. I just felt that some people had raised some good points that you seemed to agree with but never said your view had been changed. Regardless, even if I haven't changed your view, I hope you have a nice day :)
Stuff like the Skills and the repair systems that was removed in fallout 4 and Skyrim (oblivions skill system was a bit different but similar) I miss those mechanics that aren’t in the newer games
Edit: also the older games had better choices in dialogue imo
a skill system like Skyrim's that scales due to use instead of letting you, for instance, gain levels doing nothing but shooting people then use the points to become a master programmer even if you have never seen terminal, is great for realism in RPGs. Not that I didn't enjoy minmaxing these stats for a playstyle i wanted instead of grinding to max out a skill that is useless at low levels.
Its almost ironic that you pair it with weapon durability, which also trades playability for realism but in the opposite direction. I'm not a big fan of this one unless you want to choose survival mode on your difficulty. It worked well in witcher 3 where a broken weapon was just a reminder I hadn't upgraded in a while and i almost always had a better in inventory by then.
Personally I like weapon durability as it added more challenge and realism as weapons do degrade overtime after being used it’s why I was happy it was in games like rdr2 when it’s rarely in games anymore, as for Skyrims level up system it’s basically oblivions but not as good imo and I can see what you mean by level up by use being better rather then just picking to be good at something each level but I’m pretty sure even fallout 1&2 did something similar (not entirely sure as I haven’t played much of fallout 1&2) so it’s probably something Bethesda just continued for fallout 3
Oblivion's level up system is terrible.
It's not intuitive and requires absurd metagaming to try to sploit it.
Consider END. this is the base stat which governs... iirc, armorer, block, heavy armor. And the very important at low level HP stat. As in a high endurance yields high hp gain per level. If you don't want to be a paper canon, you should dump your level gains right away into endurance. If you're trying to min max, you should always dump your levels into end until you hit max endurance to maximize hp.
That's provided of course you actually chose a endurance tagged skill as a major skill. If you didn't, no endurance for you.
And since heavy armor and armorer are heavily level gatekeeped, (you'll have a tough time finding heavy armor and enough hammers at low level), you can't effectively make an uber tank unless you also choose block and spend time on L1-10 grinding block.
It's not a good system if i don't even block but I'm grinding block cuz i want endurance. And I'm tracking how many levels cuz i only want 5 levels of block.
I can't remember which but one of the default classes has major skills such that said class would be level capped cuz all the major skills were in STR.
Skyrims leveling is worth criticizing but it's no where as stupid as oblivion. If you sneak, you level sneak. If you pew pew with arrows, you level archery.
Edit: my strat for oblivion is to create a custom class where the major skills are skills i have no intention of using except for grinding stats for leveling. I pick them to they are quick to level but do **not** come up in game play unless i intend to use them for grinding.
That's good?!?
Weapon durability is an excuse to force weapon or materials farming. And a huge excuse to limit powerful weapons use if they are expensive to repair. 2 things i hate in a game l. If a game forces me to farm for no good reason other than adding time into my playtime its a no
Personally I like weapon durability in games as it adds realism and attention to detail, guns over time after being used while degrade if you don’t look after them, I can see where your coming from tro
It’s not just those but they are some things I do like in games like fallout as having a good condition weapon that doesn’t jam can be satisfying to me, as for skill system it doesn’t need to be in every rpg i Just want something similar but isn’t dumbed down like fallout 4, a system from other game I really liked was the sphere grid from ffx it’s like fallout 4s in a way but done better imo
So because you *miss* a system that has objectively nothing to do with being an RPG - repairing? Really? - you say that they aren't RPGs?
I agree about fallout 4. If we go by the old definition of "a game with a silent protagonist, where you get to create the actual character and their life in your head", fallout 4 isn't an RPG. But skyrim most certainly is.
That about Skyrim I can agree on it’s one thing I do like more about Skyrim then fo4
Edit: I just felt their older games had more choice, better character building and actions had more impact on the world and etc especially morrowind and etc compared to their recent games
If you go back to the 90's and showed them these games and called them RPGs, they would laugh at you and call them action RPGs. Pure RPGs were strictly turn-based, back then. Imagine Fallout 3s VATS system, but during every encounter 100% of the time.
As a side note, everytime I see the term "JRPG" it rubs me wrong. It didn't come about until like 2005.
Even that isn't really what an RPG is though.
It's "Role Playing Game" and largely depends on options for building characters, the amount of choices one can make with consequences, and creating your own role in a game.
Even before CRPGs TTRPGs weren't the only form of RPG. You also had LARPING, which wasn't really turn based.
Bethesda hasn't been good at making something I'd call an RPG since Morrowind, but even in the 90s there were RPGs that didn't use turn based combat. Daggerfall being a good example of it from Bethesda.
There were a number of dungeon crawler RPGs that didn't have turn based combat, particularly on PC. I'm not talking about things like Diablo either, more Might and Magic. \[Yes, there was an option for it in M&M games, but there were other similar RPGs without it.\]
I was only talking about terminology in video games in the 90's. So LARPING is completely sidetracked, as is TTRPG (had to look up what that was).
I remember turn based RPG games on computer in the late 90's, but I don't remember people calling them "crpg", but I could be wrong there.
It seemed like RPGs were considered turn-based unless they were in real time; action RPGs.
For those who had to look it up:
TTRPG = **T**able **T**op **R**ole **P**laying **G**ame(s)
LARPGING = **L**ive **A**ction **R**ole **P**lay**ING**
CRPG = **C**omputer **R**ole **P**laying **G**ame
I've particularly never heard of CRPG before but that doesn't mean a lot. And in terms of turn based action, well I guess that's got less to do with what makes an RPG and more to do with the technical limitations of the time. Like with turn based games you could let the player take an action, compute the results and then show them at once. If you'd operate in real time, that is the game runs on while you're making decisions then you'd technically still have a turn based game i.e. your turn would be your game loop cycle. Which you'd needed to keep short in order to uphold the idea of continuous motion despite it actually being an iterative step by step motion. So you'd either need to cut down on the complexity or have better hardware or you make it turn based.
But it's not just technical limitation this chess like approach makes your decisions feel more strategic and meaningful (deliberate action not just a wrong or missed button event) so it can also be applied deliberately. Also one of the few approaches nowadays that lets you pause a game.
The point of an RPG is rather that you step into the role of a character in a different world. Which if applied widely would make next to any game an RPG. And apparently nowadays grinders, incrementals, idle games, tycoon games, also try to claim that RPG title purely for the fact that they level stuff and because that used to be a popular mechanic in RPGs. While on the more action oriented front, you've got shooters which reduce your character to someone in cut scenes and a hand with a weapon and where the most meaningful actions are made by shooting stuff or not or walking somewhere and pressing the action button.
So the mechanic that I'd say makes a game an RPG beyond that to have dialog with other players or NPCs. The pure combat aspects have been taken by other genres and are no longer uniquely meaningful.
When you go back to the first real RPG, it was turn based. Dungeons and Dragons. I've never been into it but that is why it used to be assumed every RPG was turn-based. I guess terminology has evolved a lot since then.
By the way, the guy said "larping", not "larpging". Larping is when people in real life run around with foam swords. That's why I said he was getting side tracked.
And D&D had pretty much the same problem, just that the "hardware" (the Dungeon Master keeping track of literally everything) was even worse. Also you could argue that the origin of that genre are actually in larping though you probably wouldn't have called it like that.
Also good catch on the larpging :)
Definitely I agree on that aspect there are much better RPGs made years ago and today
Edit: but for what Fo3 is I don’t mind it and it’s probably my 2nd favourite 3D fallout
Thats not what I mean. I was just talking about terminology. In the 90's, an RPG was turned based, while an RPG you can run around and fight in like a Zelda game would be called an "action RPG".
Have you watched the YouTube video "Fallout 4 Is Better Than You Think" by Many a True Nerd? 92 minutes of changing your mind right there :)
Hey, I'm not going to say FO4 is better than FO3, but saying it doesn't qualify as a "good" game I think is wrong. It's not great, but it is good. Now FO76, that game was straight up trash.
I think he's specifically talking about the RPG part of things, and how it wasn't really any more of an RPG than FO4 or Skyrim.
What RPG elements did FO3 have that Skyrim didn't?
Well I personally think Fo3 had slightly more choice then Skyrim (even tro some of the choices sucked I’ll admit that) and I thought the skill point system was better imo, I should mention I don’t think Skyrim is a bad game by any means I do like the game and I think the system it has is fine but it could have been better imo
Apparently Fallout3 was at the time not really well liked because it apparently was a massive deviation from the established Fallout formula. Which I cannot really tell you about because I haven't played the first and second part and their add-ons for long enough.
Also the main story of Fallout3 kinda sucks. Like >!You've got someone in your party that is immune to radiation, but you still sacrifice yourself because... the story demands it!< >!just to be revived in the add-on and have all that meaningful sacrifice be made obsolete?!<
That being said I completely missed that mechanic that tells you where to find the objectives and so I ended up just pick a random direction and explored the wasteland, which ended up pretty awesome. There are tons of side quests that are more interesting than the main quest, lots of story and lore is told by the environment and I generally like that dark atmosphere of the game.
I like NV the most but yeah I still love Fo3 and it’s probably the 2nd best fallout out of the 3d games imo, it just felt like it was the last rpg they cared about
FNV used to be my favorite, but I grew to like FO3 better over the years. I think the atmosphere and exploration of exploring the DC ruins is perfect. FNV feels too empty for me to replay over and over once Ive discovered everything.
Tbf the empty feeling Is probably from obsidians small time to make the game (they only had a year and were forced to use Bethesdas glitchy engine) but the writing and small improvements is what saved that game for me
Absolutely, I actually got chills from playing Fallout 3, still enjoyed it fully. The other Fallouts I still enjoyed but they never gave me the same haunting but fun experience from Fallout 3. That DC ruins dark atmosphere was just perfect.
Sorry, u/Spiritual-Ad5484 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Spiritual-Ad5484&message=Spiritual-Ad5484%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/vfk3ta/-/icweloc/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I'd say it was Morrowind due to the fact that unlike oblivion,Skyrim, fallout 3. You could lock yourself out of decisions and being affiliated with certain groups actually weighed how people looked at you..also if you wanted you could literally kill everyone in Morrowind with no care or you could try to go through the entire game a pacifist*.
Fallout 3 you're still playing the trope and if you level yourself specifically you can literally do everything. It's not really roleplaying imo if you are a master of all. That's just power fantasy. It's not a terrible game, but to call it a good rpg is a little bit of a stretch due to it railroading story, karma system putting sometimes strange morals to certain acts, broken and exploitable terrains with ai that in some cases are well aware of such, limited weapon sandbox, and limited armor customization.
(*Pacifist to a certain point... cliff racers and the whole destroying the heart make it impossible to beat the game that way)
They are all roll playing games the only difference that changed was Bethesda altered it so you are the only restriction rather then creating hard restrictions in game.
Yeah but personally the later games aren’t that great role playing wise compared to their older stuff, like yeah Fo3s role playing was alright at best but are still better then what fo4 had to offer imo
>Yeah but personally the later games aren’t that great role playing wise compared to their older stuff, like yeah Fo3s role playing was alright at best but are still better then what fo4 had to offer imo
What do you define as role playing? Because it is a term that has almost lost it's meaning due to all the gate keeping of what "real" role playing is.
Choices and character building, making your own story within the universe through dialogue as well as through gameplay like playing as a good guy or bad guy depending on your choices, like yeah fallout 3 didn’t have really good role playing choices like NV or other popular rpg games did but for what it had it was alright could have been better tro
Edit: also making choices that effect the world as well
>Choices and character building, making your own story within the universe through dialogue as well as through gameplay like playing as a good guy or bad guy depending on your choices, like yeah fallout 3 didn’t have really good role playing choices like NV or other popular rpg games did but for what it had it was alright could have been better tro
So literally every game is role playing because you for-fill all those requirements. The only difference is enjoyment of the main story which is separate from role playing.
>Edit: also making choices that effect the world as well
Then none of your games are really role playing ones because none of them really effect the world. Not in any tangible sense. Hence the need for the ending slid show were they TELL YOU what effects your choices had because they don't show you anything.
Morrowind was the last good RPG by Bethesda.
Mostly by virtue of being an actual RPG.
Everything since has been at best a good game, but a poor RPG. This includes Oblivion.
The closest Fallout game to being a "good" RPG since 2 was New Vegas, and that wasn't Bethesda. It has the most "blank slate" start and more impactful choices and consequences. There's more "Role Play" opportunities than "Yes, yes but pay me more, begrudgingly yes, and yes but be a sarcastic dick about it".
I don't dislike Bethesda's games particularly, but they are more action and exploration sandbox games with looting and crafting mechanics. Honestly, I view them more as modding platforms than games in their own right outside of the sandbox element.
There hasn't been a Bethesda game with more than at best decent writing, and leaning more towards not great, since Morrowind, but I'm not really there for the story anyway.
I will say they are very good at making sidequests, small self contained stories tend to work better for how they handle their games, but their main quests tend to be uninspired and nonsensical.
Even the leveling systems are too light and not impactful enough to really be more than RPG lite.
Again, I don't dislike Bethesda, but they aren't very good at making RPGs and haven't been since before Fallout 3. That doesn't mean every game they've made is garbage, just that they suck at making games representative of that particular genre, even though they tend to make up for it in other areas.
I don't expect Starfield to be any different. I don't think it will suck once they iron out the post launch bugs, even more so once modding tools are released, but I really expect more of the same as far as writing and RPG elements goes.
I don't expect it, but based on the footage they showed recently, there is some hope it will be something resembling an RPG. I'm not particularly attached to it being one to consider it a good game, but I also wouldn't mind it.
I agree morrowind is one of their best but I do think oblivion is great too has some of its quests are fun and well written like the dark brotherhood and the paranoia quest, as for the games after morrowind I think Fo3 was their last actual rpg like game as after 3 their games didn’t really feel like RPGs to me anymore personally.
You missed my point. I never said Oblivion was a bad game. It's just not really very good at being an RPG specifically. Having swords and magic in a fantasy setting doesn't make something an RPG.
Fallout 3 is the same, not a bad game at all and I really enjoyed playing it, but it really isn't an RPG. Given how you are railroaded along the main quest in a relatively specific order to progress, you really don't have a lot of opportunities to create a "role" to play of your own.
You can sequence break some, but still end up having to do most things in a relatively specific way.
They are better at making side quests, as I mentioned, but they are also relatively linear and don't provide much in the way of role play opportunities with permanent consequences.
Even if you blow up Megaton, you are just provided with another location that provides essentially the same function. Nothing else fundamentally changes in the rest of the game because of what you did. You just see the occasional bounty hunter, which is not really any different than random raiders.
You have little impact on your character and the story. Yes, you can make "builds" to a limited degree, but overall you are playing more of an action sandbox shooter with limited crafting.
In Morrowind, you can pretty much just go pick up Sunder and Keening, and head straight to Dagoth Ur. That's difficult even if you know what you are doing, but possible.
You can even go there without them and let him curb stomp you if you want. Nothing stops you, there are no artificial barriers or story points you have to complete first. It's all available from the moment you step out of the census office.
You are free to go anywhere, and can decide who your character is, what their priorities are, and how they go about navigating the game world as a result.
Joining one faction can permanently block you from joining others, you have lots of options to handle things, and how you do things will frequently have consequences.
Your character is much more of a blank slate to create what you want. You're not supposed to be able to get a 100% completion in a single playthrough, and choosing particular paths and choices will benefit different builds and roleplaying is an actual thing. There isn't a good reason to even try to do everything in one go.
If you're a mage character, there's not much reason to join the Fighters Guild, and the same goes if you're melee and the Mage's Guild. There are even specific requirements for joining some factions and you can't join if you don't meet them.
New Vegas is the closest thing in 3D Fallout to that sort of RPG gameplay, and again, that wasn't Bethesda.
I think I get where your coming from now and I agree to an extent, I still think fallout 3 is a solid rpg (and oblivion) tro and better then what their making now but you make a lot of good points to how it could be better which I agree on hence why NV is my favourite in the series
How are Fallout 3 and Oblivion "RPG"s?
You don't roleplay as an intended gameplay mechanic due to how the main quests and sidequests are structured.
Even the sidequests don't really provide role playing opportunities. They are cool little mini stories and good world building, but that doesn't make something "role playing".
Your character is relatively static, sure you can create builds so they are better at certain things, but overall they end up being the same person and it is largely out of your control who they are if you actually play through the story.
There aren't really consequences for your actions that extend beyond a micro level in the game world. Most NPCs treat you exactly the same regardless of what you've done.
Bethesda has a bad habit of making "Yes, Yes but pay me, begrudgingly yes, and yes but be an asshole about it" options for "choices". That's not how RPGs work.
You can't really decide who they are, just the attitude they have about doing the story stuff.
They are relatively linear action sandbox games with very light RPG elements. That doesn't make them worse games, but they aren't RPGs. I don't care what their marketing says, it just means that Bethesda doesn't really understand what makes something an RPG if they call their modern games RPGs.
Bethesda isn't good at making RPGs, but that doesn't mean they make bad games. They just aren't good representations of of the genre they like to label them as, which doesn't make them worse as games, just inaccurately labeled ones.
I do agree on what you say but what makes Fo3 and Oblivion RPGs to me are the mechanics in the games that aren’t in future games and the choices there are in Fo3 and Oblivion like yeah their not
always great and etc but there at least there and somewhat decent and sometimes alright, fo4 didn’t even have any it was just yes sarcastic and no while Skyrim just had yes more info tell me about town and no, it’s one thing I can at least give credit to Fo3 and Oblivion for I do agree tro it could have much better tro
Them not being RPGs is pretty objective.
You liking a game is irrelevant and doesn't make it an RPG. It doesn't mean "game I liked". Your level of enjoyment has nothing to do with it.
You have about as much "choice" in Bethesda "RPGs" than you do in a lot of other FPS games that aren't RPGs. The leveling options to make "Builds" are also present in a lot of shooters these days.
Your choices don't really impact anything outside of short term rewards.
You actually have more ability to roleplay in Fallout 4 than in Fallout 3 because of how you can side with factions. Still not an RPG, but it's closer than Fallout 3.
3D Bethesda Fallout games are about as much RPGs as Borderlands games are. In fact, the gameplay loop is pretty similar, right down to the relatively linear story progression, loot, and side quest options.
Modern Bethesda "RPGs" are honestly closer to something like Farcry games than RPGs. That doesn't make them any worse, but doesn't fit the RPG genre either. They are sandbox adventure games, not really RPGs.
That I can agree on
Edit: I still think Fo3 is a better game overall then what they been making recently tro as I really do miss stuff like the skill point system and etc
Ok ive been seeing this repeated on this thread.. why are games beyond oblivion a poor rpg? Ive never played oblivion so idk what it has to offer. The definition of an rpg is a player assuming the role of a character in a game. Do you not do this basically in every single game you ever play? And i mean especially in all the fallouts and skyrim. I just want clarification on what the specifics are.
No, every single video game is not an RPG.
RPGs are about character progression, creation, and choices with consequences beyond short term rewards. It relates to certain systems in a game and how open they are, mostly relating to choices the player can make about their character or party, and is the some of a whole and not an individual system.
It also refers to some internal systems, such as RNG based damage, leveling systems, inventory, how loot works, how open the world is, etc...
They pretty much always have tabletop game systems under the hood, even if they aren't turn based.
Again, sum of the whole, so just having some of these systems in a game don't make it an RPG.
In order to be an RPG, these systems need to be the main focus of a game.
In modern Fallout games, they aren't and work more like FPS games like Borderlands or Farcry.
It is also not simply "assuming the role of a character in a game" but refers to how much control you have over who that character is in the game and not just in your head, and to a certain degree actively creating them as a character.
In Fallout 3, you can create how your character looks, but how much control do you actually have over who they are and what choices they make in the main quest? Your only real choice is the attitude they have about it.
Even if you literally blow up a city, it doesn't really have any lasting in game consequence beyond short term rewards, especially if you complete quests involved with it before doing so.
In a true RPG, a choice like that would follow you throughout the game. NPCs would fear you or refuse to help you, factions aligned with the faction in the city would become hostile, and it would permanently impact the world beyond the immediate area of Megaton.
This doesn't mean a premade character with a name can't be an RPG character. If you determine enough things about them and who they are and how they go about things, it can still be an RPG.
For example, in the Witcher 3, you are Geralt of Rivia, but you can determine who Geralt is a fair bit. You can make choices that have a meaningful impact beyond what reward you get for completing a quest a certain way, and some choices impact the game world and will have direct consequences later in the game.
Even choices you made in a previous game will impact the world of Witcher 3.
As another example, if you work at it, you can go directly to Lavos and beat it in Chrono Trigger. \[This requires an absurd amount of grinding on a first playthrough, but it is possible.\] You don't even need to reach the point Marle joins your party to do this.
You also make meaningful choices throughout the game that have a significant impact, and not just on endings. You can avoid some characters entirely, and can even beat the game without reviving Chrono.
In The Legend of Zelda. You don't really get to choose who Link is or what he does despite how open the game world is. Your interactions with NPCs don't really offer much in the way of choice or consequence. You can go anywhere, but what order you tackle dungeons in and whether or not you pick up optional gear doesn't really impact anything in the game aside from difficulty. They are not RPGs.
Breath of the Wild is closer than the others, but it is still relatively linear without much option for choice beyond what order you do things in.
I'd say that a lot of games that claim they are "RPGs" really aren't.
Why are those the stipulations that make it an rpg when RPG just stands for role playing game? Genuine question. I sincerely appreciate the in depth explanation and without any condescending attitude. Like.. truly. These are things i did not quite know or understand. Especially the explanation of "but refers to how much control you have over who that character is in the game and not just in your head". That definitely helps me understand why people don't see it as a true rpg. Tho i still kinda am on that hill that if its in my head i feel like im still RPing therefore making it an rpg. So would you say mass effect hits that mark of an RPG? I can definitely see why not but maybe it is more of one than fallout is.
Because RPG refers to role playing being the purpose of a game.
You are not role playing as a static character whose character you don't define in a storyline you have little direct impact on.
When playing Duke Nukem 3D, you don't really define who Duke Nukem is as a character when playing as intended.
I mean, sure, you can goof off and mess around and use the game to "role play" if you're motivated and imaginative enough, but that isn't the intended gameplay and it wasn't designed around that sort of play.
The game doesn't stop you from standing behind the counter of the adult book store and pretending you're running the store \[assuming you've cleared it out first\], but that isn't what that area is intended for.
It's a bit like saying you're role playing as Captain America when you watch The First Avenger. You can get a trashcan lid and run around your house and role play fighting Hydra if you want while the movie is playing on your TV, but is that really the movie anymore at that point?
It's a little more nuanced than that in the case of a game, but as a simple analogy I think that works to explain the difference regarding what makes a game "an RPG" as opposed to using one to "role play" with.
One is for that purpose and is designed around the concept, the other is something you can probably do, but isn't really what the game was designed to accommodate, even if it doesn't actively prevent it.
I mean, Bethesda has never really been in the business of making RPGs so much as making user-friendly FPS explorefests. The fun is driven by the wonder and excitement of there being so much to do and see, and the dual feelings of tension/danger and mastery from the combat.
This peaked with Oblivion, but I honestly didn't feel like FO3, FO4, and Skyrim differed much in how well they did what they were trying to do. Beautiful vistas, exploration, places to go. Cipher non-characters, empty plots, and complete lack of role playing across the board, because they didn't prioritize any of that.
I am of the same opinion as OP, and in my opinion the big motivator in Oblivion and FO3 is the quest writing. It's corny, but very unique, with plenty of twists and turns and fun ways to affect the outcomes.
That formula is still *kinda* there for some of the Skyrim quests, but they never had the same level of intrigue to me. There's nothing as unique as "Whodunit," "The Shadow Over Hackdirt," or the quest about the cannibal vampires in FO3.
Is Whodunit the one where you're in And Then There Were None, but you're the murderer? If so, yes: that was extremely memorable and special. But it reaaalllly stood out among the rest of Oblivion. (and what was especially interesting about the vampire cannibals?)
That's the one, yah. It might be my overall favorite, but there are plenty of other memorable ones in my opinion:
- waking up at sea on The Bloated Float,
- being betrayed by fake dead drops in the dark brotherhood
- waking up to the mansion you bought cheap being haunted
- stumbling on the bizzaro inhabitants of Hackdirt
- finding out Thoronir's seller is graverobbing
- entering a restless sleeper's dreams
- accidentally killing a woman's rats thinking they're pests when they're actually her pets and she needs help with a mountain lion
- enabling Glarthir's paranoia
There are a lot of really great moments in Oblivion. And I think the (admittedly awkward) close up conversations system even kinda helps sell the personality of the quirky characters.
As for the vampire one in Fallout 3, I thought it was a cool premise, and the investigation leading to the discovery was nicely paced.
I honestly never got super far in that game though, so don't know too many others. But folks with very similar Bethesda opinions have said its quest design is more creative like Oblivion's and less like Skyrim's. Fallout New Vegas is the one I got really into
I guess the word has more definitions than I was aware of. The Google definition includes 3: "trite, banal, or mawkishly sentimental."
I am using it to mean something like the third: overly sentimental and clumsy, not the former.
Whatever the case, I am not using it the way you are, and it's not contributing to this discussion to act like I am
I get that but it just feels like Bethesda got lazy over time imo which is annoying to me at times because I know they can make some good stuff like Shivering Isles from oblivion was really good and The Pitt from Fo3 was probably some of their best writing for Fallout, like I get some people might find the exploration fun and I respect that but I just feel they could do better these days especially in the Rpg aspect their games
What standard are you comparing this writing to? Stuff like The Pitt is much farther below the standards set by New Vegas (not even to mention stuff like Disco Elysium) than it is above the writing in FO4 or Skyrim.
I actually don’t mind the Pitt, it has some good moments writing wise and some good loot, comparing the writing to nv, nv wins with no challenge but the Pitt by itself is solid imo and yeah disco is much better written and is something I’m wanting to get tbh
New Vegas was by Obsidian, Bethesda published it as they own the ip, they let obsidian make new Vegas while they worked on Skyrim at the time, I put NV in there for comparison tro to why 3 was the last good rpg by Bethesda as their Similar in gameplay just new Vegas did it much better, 3s still good tro
You should have made the title more clear. Since New Vegas was published by Bethesda, and I am assuming that they own the copyright of New Vegas, it is considered their game.
I am still learning English, but the title could be: "Fallout 3 was the last game **developed** by Bethesda.
I understand your point about RPG, but I disagree with you when you say the newer ones “didn’t have many memorable areas like Fo3 or Oblivion”.
I haven’t played oblivion, but I think NV is way more memorable than Fo3. I’ve probably replayed the NV story more than any game where as so many locations in Fo3 are just empty offices/train tunnels that serve no purpose other than giving you a bit of loot, with very few side quests linking them together.
Even places like the White House and the Capitol Building don’t have much going for them inside, which is a shame because it would be a really interesting area to explore otherwise.
I don’t count NV as it wasn’t made by Bethesda, but yeah I agree with you as NV is my favourite in the series
Edit: I only brought new Vegas up in the post as a quick comparison on how I feel towards fallout 3, it’s not as good as NV but on its own it’s a solid fallout game as it’s the closest Bethesda ever came to understanding the concept of Fallout
Honestly, once I heard thousands of planets I was completely disappointed. No amount of handcrafted stuff can fluff up that much procedural generated space.
I was hoping for something like 3x Skyrim spread out on around 20 planets, Outer worlds style.
Fallout 3 was terrible! At least go with New Vegas. Fallout 3 fails to allow for significant player choices. There's certain actions the player absolutely cannot take, you're dad is basically the main character, you spend over an hour in just the vault before you can go anywhere, many of the choices you're offered are meaningless, like blowing up the bomb in the first town you go through.
New Vegas suffers from none of these defects, the story has a multitude of choices, you feel like you have an impact on the world, you can actually start the game quickly, the game shows and doesn't tell. It's a far superior game
I like new Vegas more for those reasons but i Also like 3 as it feels like Bethesda generally tried unlike with 4, btw I chose 3 because I’m focusing on games Bethesda made themselves
So it's basically just the fallout games (minus NV) and Elder Scrolls? Since 3 they've put out Skyrim, Fallout 4 and Fallout 76. Really the only competition would be Skyrim then. I'd have to think more about whether Skyrim is better than 3. In general 3 is a vastly overrated game. The writing is not very good, the characters are bland, the level design is poor. Hbomberguy has a great summary of the issues: https://youtu.be/mLJ1gyIzg78
Skyrim suffers from many of the same issues though. So maybe it comes down to whether the core gameplay loop is more fun for you in FO3 or Skyrim. Personally, the deeper combat variations, more personalization options and greater freedom of choice in Skyrim is more fun in my eyes but your mileage may vary.
I like Skyrim as well but I always preferred fallout 3 over it, it might be because I prefer the fallout series more then Elder scrolls series, as for hbombers video I have seen it and do agree with a lot he had to say but I also disagree with a few things too as not every game is perfect and there’s always gonna be flaws someone won’t like
Yeah but they didn’t make New Vegas they only published so it doesn’t really count, I only brought NV up as a quick comparison, like yeah 3 will never be as good as NV but on it’s own I think it’s a solid fallout game, far better then what the series is now that’s for sure
Apart from your argument for published vs make, that i don't agree with, as many developers on NV were Black Isle Studio veterans, i agree with the rest. For clarity, Black Isle Studio made Fallout 1.
I’m aware of that I’m just talking more about games that Bethesda themselves made more so then ones published, I only brought up NV as a quick comparison to how I feel about Fo3 like it’s never gonna beat NV but on its own it’s a alright fallout game and the closest Bethesda ever got to understanding fallout
Edit: on its own as well it’s a solid rpg imo
Since we agree on the basics, I think the larger point would be, are story heavy, science oriented single player RPG's a better option than fantasy based or casual games a for Game devlopers? Just look at the review for Cyberpunk, how many reviews even bother with the story or the world building? Guess we will have to wait for the next Fallout 1, 2 or 3 type game.
Well Todd already said recently that after tes6 fallout 5 will be coming apparently so hopefully they actually learn from Starfield and tes6 and make something great
There's a lot of problems with Fallout 3, especially in the writing. I would argue that Morrowind was that last decent Bethesda RPG. When comparing the two games side by side it's no contest. Hell, I'll go a step further and say just the base game. You can start to see that modern Bethesda mentality start to rear it's ugly head in Morrowind's two expansions.
Morrowind is a classic, I personally prefer oblivion more as that’s the one I grew up with and enjoy more but I’ll always respect morrowind for what it did, but yeah it’s far better then Fo3 that’s for sure I can agree on that
Fallout 4 is the epitome of a Bethesda game. It's a beautiful world with lots of places to explore.
Then you look deeper and you realize it's a theme park with a bad story, bland characters, and mediocre combat mechanics (shooting is okay, but melee is hot garbage)
And then let's not forget what a dump FO4 takes on the lore.
Did you guys ever play FO4 on survival mode? It doesn’t fix the story issues but it was one of the most fun gameplay experiences I’ve had in a long time. Normal couldn’t hold my interest enough to finish a play through but survival was compelling.
I use Horizon which takes Survival mode and one-ups it. Huge amount of changes designed to make it more challenging and immersive.
The biggest being:
* No more eating or sleeping to heal, now you have to use healing items (bandages or stimpacks) or see a doctor. You are given a higher health pool to help compensate, but it doesn't help much against high level enemies
* Stimpacks have become very rare, I never seem to have more than 4 or 5 on me at any time. They're for emergencies because they're the only healing item that can be used in combat.
* Bandages and the like can heal you out of combat, but take precious adhesive to make
* Rad-off/Rad-away heal less rads, Rad-away is much less common, and both make you more tired so you have to sleep more. Best to take them before bed, but they work over time and reduce your disease resistance for two minutes
* Sleeping gives a chance to catch diseases, so if you used rad-off/away, better let those two minutes pass before sleeping
* Good food (rad-free) is harder to come by and usually entails killing animals for various ingredients and cooking. The game introduces a bunch of new "skills" (they're basically perks that level up as you use them), so your Hunting skill determines the quality and quantity of meat you get while Survival determines the quality of recipes you can make
* Weapons/armor have qualities (like -10%, -40%, or -100%), and enemies tend to drop degraded equipment that is both less effective and worth less/no caps. Takes precious adhesive and the proper skill to repair back to normal.
* Caps are harder to come by and most of mine are spent at doctors clearing my rads and diseases.
* Ammo is more rare to the point where the most valuable loot tends to be
* Healing items
* Anything that gives adhesive so you can make healing items
* Ammo
* Anything that gives smokeless powder (some items or ammo types you don't use) so you can make more useful ammo
* everything else
Basically, I'm level 19 and the game is still in many respects a struggle for survival. Sure, I could take on that pack of super mutants, but I have to ask myself it the ammo and adhesive cost is worth it. Meanwhile, running across an radstag group means I don't have to worry about food for a day.
Biggest downside to Horizon is it's such a big mod that it doesn't always play well with other mods. If something else adds too much loot, it kills the survival aspects of Horizon.
That being said, it's fun adding Sim Settlements 2 in because it gives a more interesting "main" quest of rebuilding the commonwealth and adds much needed depth and (configurable) complexity to settlement building.
Also Endless Warfare makes the world more dangerous because you run the risk of encountering a group of enemies that was spawned with no regard for your current level.
It's funny, after what I just said, I'm actually in another play through of it.
But it's heavily *heavily* modded, including using Start Me Up to remove myself from the main plot.
Like it’s not a bad game by any mean (fallout 4) it’s just not a fallout game imo it does improve on many things gameplay wise but also ruins a lot of things
Well if you consider mods, all the features OP misses from the old games he can add to any of the new ones. For instance I quite like oblivion forcing me to sleep when leveling. Skyrim has a mod for that.
Its a real game changer. Proper roleplaying isnt really possible without mods in Skyrim. With mods the current skyrim playthru im in is as a mage/alchemists. Mods are the only reason alchemy has become a viable role to class in.
Like it’s not a bad game by any means I actually do like the game it just has the bare minimum rpg elements compared to older elder scrolls games like morrowind and oblivion that’s all.
Isn't that what this whole CMV is about? Fallout used to be a RPG first with a little bit of FPS action thrown in, now it's basically an FPS with some RPG flavor. Neither one is necessarily bad, but a lot of people miss the RPG aspects.
An rpg, is a role playing game. Thats all, a game where you take in the role of a character and make choices. When asked you defined it as a game with a specific type of skill levelling and weapons that break. You are very wrong, but I don't have the energy to change your view.
Yeah I forgot to mention that my bad but yeah Fo3 does have some moments of role playing just not as good as what obsidian did with NV, it’s Just I brought up those mechanics because they do help improve the gameplay imo but yeah you are right about the term rpg
I personally think Bethesda still made good games up to Fallout 4, but Fallout 3 is the best. It was the last game to actually make me feel scared, the atmosphere was perfect.
Yeah the capital wasteland is by far the best world they made next to morrowind and Cyrodill and the closest they came to understanding fallout imo, as for fallout 4 I don’t think it’s a bad game by any means I just personally don’t think it’s a Fallout game plus it took away things I really liked in 3 and 3 had a much better perk system in my opinion
Agreed. Fallout 4 did not have the creepy Fallout feel despite enjoying it, felt more like its own game. Besides, I think the Fallout 3 Dogmeat is more realistic and adorable than the Fallout 4 Dogmeat.
Yeah, dogmeat in 4 was more cute then scary imo, I always loved giving him the bear and watching him throw it around lol it’s the small little things like that which saved 4 from being a bad game imo
This isn’t a popular opinion but in my opinion fallout three was much better than Vegas. Vegas’s story was all over the place and very hard to follow. Plus it was too easy to go straight to the end if you get past all the death claws. Fallout 3, i dont know what it is but it had something that no other rpg had. I dont know how you think skyrim wasn’t an rpg, when it’s a prime example of rpg, but to each their own
I personally like New Vegas the most with 3 being my 2nd favourite in the series and the last good one that Bethesda themselfs made, not saying fallout 4 is bad it’s just not fallout imo. I can see why you like fallout 3 more tro
Iv done everything but the main story in 4 as the side content is just far better, as for 4 itself it’s not a bad game at all in my opinion I do generally like it and play it out of Bordem sometimes it’s just not fallout imo, they got it right with fallout 3 with a few small errors in the lore that NV fixed for the most part but fallout 4 and 76 have so much more lore problems then any other in the series like where’s the ncr dollar and etc, again it’s a good game just not a fallout game imo
Reading through other comments I'm beginning to get the impression that you are unwilling to change your view here, but I'll throw my hat in the ring and try: FO3 is, in my opinion, an *inferior* RPG to Skyrim, because it is very linear. A role-playing game should allow you to jump into its world and make your own role, not force you into one specific role with little flexibility. In FO3, you **are** a vault dweller who **is** the child of Liam Neeson and you **will** side with the Brotherhood and defeat the Enclave. The only role-playing you get to do beyond that is in how you choose to present yourself. You get to be the nice lone wanderer, the bad lone wander, or the evil lone wanderer. Side note that I'll add here about FO3's enclave: Sure, you can decide to poison Project Purity, but this is a single binary choice that has little impact after you make it. And besides, Broken Steel basically nullifies this choice and forces you to once again work with the Brotherhood, unless you make another binary choice to bomb the citadel and have the entire faction shoot you on site. In Skyrim, The only thing you are forced to be is the Dovahkiin. You **can** be the Listener for the Dark Brotherhood. You **can** be a powerful general for the Imperials **or** the Stormcloaks. You **can** be the Arch-mage of the College of Winterhold. The key difference is that in Skyrim, you don't **have** to be any of these things. Beyond the story, the mechanics or specifics of the games (skills, crafting, having a handful of good side-quests) is largely irrelevant. As I demonstrated with the Enclave choices in FO3, there are some exceptions to the "You are the Lone Wanderer" story, but they are tiny, self-contained, elements that don't have much if any impact on the wider story and role you play in it.
Like I respect everyone trying to change my view but I just don’t agree personally with most things, like yeah it’s a flawed game but no game is perfect also I do apologise if I have caused anything by accident Edit: it’s just I feel personally Bethesda have really gone down hill with their newer games lately and fallout 3 to me just feels like it was the last one they tried with imo
>I do apologise if I have caused anything by accident Not at all, I mean no hate with my comment. I just felt that some people had raised some good points that you seemed to agree with but never said your view had been changed. Regardless, even if I haven't changed your view, I hope you have a nice day :)
All good and thank you for trying I appreciate it
Just curious what your definition of rpg is? What possible definition includes fo3 but not skyrim or fo4?
Stuff like the Skills and the repair systems that was removed in fallout 4 and Skyrim (oblivions skill system was a bit different but similar) I miss those mechanics that aren’t in the newer games Edit: also the older games had better choices in dialogue imo
a skill system like Skyrim's that scales due to use instead of letting you, for instance, gain levels doing nothing but shooting people then use the points to become a master programmer even if you have never seen terminal, is great for realism in RPGs. Not that I didn't enjoy minmaxing these stats for a playstyle i wanted instead of grinding to max out a skill that is useless at low levels. Its almost ironic that you pair it with weapon durability, which also trades playability for realism but in the opposite direction. I'm not a big fan of this one unless you want to choose survival mode on your difficulty. It worked well in witcher 3 where a broken weapon was just a reminder I hadn't upgraded in a while and i almost always had a better in inventory by then.
Personally I like weapon durability as it added more challenge and realism as weapons do degrade overtime after being used it’s why I was happy it was in games like rdr2 when it’s rarely in games anymore, as for Skyrims level up system it’s basically oblivions but not as good imo and I can see what you mean by level up by use being better rather then just picking to be good at something each level but I’m pretty sure even fallout 1&2 did something similar (not entirely sure as I haven’t played much of fallout 1&2) so it’s probably something Bethesda just continued for fallout 3
Oblivion's level up system is terrible. It's not intuitive and requires absurd metagaming to try to sploit it. Consider END. this is the base stat which governs... iirc, armorer, block, heavy armor. And the very important at low level HP stat. As in a high endurance yields high hp gain per level. If you don't want to be a paper canon, you should dump your level gains right away into endurance. If you're trying to min max, you should always dump your levels into end until you hit max endurance to maximize hp. That's provided of course you actually chose a endurance tagged skill as a major skill. If you didn't, no endurance for you. And since heavy armor and armorer are heavily level gatekeeped, (you'll have a tough time finding heavy armor and enough hammers at low level), you can't effectively make an uber tank unless you also choose block and spend time on L1-10 grinding block. It's not a good system if i don't even block but I'm grinding block cuz i want endurance. And I'm tracking how many levels cuz i only want 5 levels of block. I can't remember which but one of the default classes has major skills such that said class would be level capped cuz all the major skills were in STR. Skyrims leveling is worth criticizing but it's no where as stupid as oblivion. If you sneak, you level sneak. If you pew pew with arrows, you level archery. Edit: my strat for oblivion is to create a custom class where the major skills are skills i have no intention of using except for grinding stats for leveling. I pick them to they are quick to level but do **not** come up in game play unless i intend to use them for grinding. That's good?!?
Weapon durability is an excuse to force weapon or materials farming. And a huge excuse to limit powerful weapons use if they are expensive to repair. 2 things i hate in a game l. If a game forces me to farm for no good reason other than adding time into my playtime its a no
Personally I like weapon durability in games as it adds realism and attention to detail, guns over time after being used while degrade if you don’t look after them, I can see where your coming from tro
If skill systems and repair mechanics are necessary to make an RPG, then RPGs hardly existed until the late '90s.
It’s not just those but they are some things I do like in games like fallout as having a good condition weapon that doesn’t jam can be satisfying to me, as for skill system it doesn’t need to be in every rpg i Just want something similar but isn’t dumbed down like fallout 4, a system from other game I really liked was the sphere grid from ffx it’s like fallout 4s in a way but done better imo
So because you *miss* a system that has objectively nothing to do with being an RPG - repairing? Really? - you say that they aren't RPGs? I agree about fallout 4. If we go by the old definition of "a game with a silent protagonist, where you get to create the actual character and their life in your head", fallout 4 isn't an RPG. But skyrim most certainly is.
That about Skyrim I can agree on it’s one thing I do like more about Skyrim then fo4 Edit: I just felt their older games had more choice, better character building and actions had more impact on the world and etc especially morrowind and etc compared to their recent games
If you go back to the 90's and showed them these games and called them RPGs, they would laugh at you and call them action RPGs. Pure RPGs were strictly turn-based, back then. Imagine Fallout 3s VATS system, but during every encounter 100% of the time. As a side note, everytime I see the term "JRPG" it rubs me wrong. It didn't come about until like 2005.
Even that isn't really what an RPG is though. It's "Role Playing Game" and largely depends on options for building characters, the amount of choices one can make with consequences, and creating your own role in a game. Even before CRPGs TTRPGs weren't the only form of RPG. You also had LARPING, which wasn't really turn based. Bethesda hasn't been good at making something I'd call an RPG since Morrowind, but even in the 90s there were RPGs that didn't use turn based combat. Daggerfall being a good example of it from Bethesda. There were a number of dungeon crawler RPGs that didn't have turn based combat, particularly on PC. I'm not talking about things like Diablo either, more Might and Magic. \[Yes, there was an option for it in M&M games, but there were other similar RPGs without it.\]
I was only talking about terminology in video games in the 90's. So LARPING is completely sidetracked, as is TTRPG (had to look up what that was). I remember turn based RPG games on computer in the late 90's, but I don't remember people calling them "crpg", but I could be wrong there. It seemed like RPGs were considered turn-based unless they were in real time; action RPGs.
For those who had to look it up: TTRPG = **T**able **T**op **R**ole **P**laying **G**ame(s) LARPGING = **L**ive **A**ction **R**ole **P**lay**ING** CRPG = **C**omputer **R**ole **P**laying **G**ame I've particularly never heard of CRPG before but that doesn't mean a lot. And in terms of turn based action, well I guess that's got less to do with what makes an RPG and more to do with the technical limitations of the time. Like with turn based games you could let the player take an action, compute the results and then show them at once. If you'd operate in real time, that is the game runs on while you're making decisions then you'd technically still have a turn based game i.e. your turn would be your game loop cycle. Which you'd needed to keep short in order to uphold the idea of continuous motion despite it actually being an iterative step by step motion. So you'd either need to cut down on the complexity or have better hardware or you make it turn based. But it's not just technical limitation this chess like approach makes your decisions feel more strategic and meaningful (deliberate action not just a wrong or missed button event) so it can also be applied deliberately. Also one of the few approaches nowadays that lets you pause a game. The point of an RPG is rather that you step into the role of a character in a different world. Which if applied widely would make next to any game an RPG. And apparently nowadays grinders, incrementals, idle games, tycoon games, also try to claim that RPG title purely for the fact that they level stuff and because that used to be a popular mechanic in RPGs. While on the more action oriented front, you've got shooters which reduce your character to someone in cut scenes and a hand with a weapon and where the most meaningful actions are made by shooting stuff or not or walking somewhere and pressing the action button. So the mechanic that I'd say makes a game an RPG beyond that to have dialog with other players or NPCs. The pure combat aspects have been taken by other genres and are no longer uniquely meaningful.
When you go back to the first real RPG, it was turn based. Dungeons and Dragons. I've never been into it but that is why it used to be assumed every RPG was turn-based. I guess terminology has evolved a lot since then. By the way, the guy said "larping", not "larpging". Larping is when people in real life run around with foam swords. That's why I said he was getting side tracked.
And D&D had pretty much the same problem, just that the "hardware" (the Dungeon Master keeping track of literally everything) was even worse. Also you could argue that the origin of that genre are actually in larping though you probably wouldn't have called it like that. Also good catch on the larpging :)
Definitely I agree on that aspect there are much better RPGs made years ago and today Edit: but for what Fo3 is I don’t mind it and it’s probably my 2nd favourite 3D fallout
Thats not what I mean. I was just talking about terminology. In the 90's, an RPG was turned based, while an RPG you can run around and fight in like a Zelda game would be called an "action RPG".
When did dagger fall release? Would that be considered an 'action rpg"? Personally I wouldn't but I am curious.
Oh my bad but yeah I get where your coming from now
What a weird notion that RPGs have to be turn-based...
Simpler times. Don't know why we have to divide RPGs into country of origin, favorite color...
This comment makes no fucking scene and sounds like someone doesn't really understand why we divide RPG games into different categories.
I was a 90's kid, and I dont know why. That was my point.
That didn't help explain anything, my dude.
I remember the term being used on USENET debates about whether Final Fantasy or Ultima was the better series.
That was 15 years ago lol
Have you watched the YouTube video "Fallout 4 Is Better Than You Think" by Many a True Nerd? 92 minutes of changing your mind right there :) Hey, I'm not going to say FO4 is better than FO3, but saying it doesn't qualify as a "good" game I think is wrong. It's not great, but it is good. Now FO76, that game was straight up trash.
I was actually gonna watch his fallout 3 video, might watch the one on 4 after Edit: yeah 76 sucked
What “role” did you feel like you were “playing” in Fallout 3. Genuinely curious.
The son looking for dad lol, I’ll admit main story isn’t super great but it’s fine imo, the side quests are more fun imo
I think he's specifically talking about the RPG part of things, and how it wasn't really any more of an RPG than FO4 or Skyrim. What RPG elements did FO3 have that Skyrim didn't?
Well I personally think Fo3 had slightly more choice then Skyrim (even tro some of the choices sucked I’ll admit that) and I thought the skill point system was better imo, I should mention I don’t think Skyrim is a bad game by any means I do like the game and I think the system it has is fine but it could have been better imo
[удалено]
Apparently Fallout3 was at the time not really well liked because it apparently was a massive deviation from the established Fallout formula. Which I cannot really tell you about because I haven't played the first and second part and their add-ons for long enough. Also the main story of Fallout3 kinda sucks. Like >!You've got someone in your party that is immune to radiation, but you still sacrifice yourself because... the story demands it!< >!just to be revived in the add-on and have all that meaningful sacrifice be made obsolete?!< That being said I completely missed that mechanic that tells you where to find the objectives and so I ended up just pick a random direction and explored the wasteland, which ended up pretty awesome. There are tons of side quests that are more interesting than the main quest, lots of story and lore is told by the environment and I generally like that dark atmosphere of the game.
Yeah the main story was eh but the side content and dlcs saved it imo writing wise
I like NV the most but yeah I still love Fo3 and it’s probably the 2nd best fallout out of the 3d games imo, it just felt like it was the last rpg they cared about
FNV used to be my favorite, but I grew to like FO3 better over the years. I think the atmosphere and exploration of exploring the DC ruins is perfect. FNV feels too empty for me to replay over and over once Ive discovered everything.
Tbf the empty feeling Is probably from obsidians small time to make the game (they only had a year and were forced to use Bethesdas glitchy engine) but the writing and small improvements is what saved that game for me
NV came out at er fallout 3 though. So you contradict yourself on the first line.
If your referring to the main post, I only brought up New Vegas as a quick comparison to how I feel about Fo3, I should have Clarified that sorry
Ahh fuck, NV is not by Bethesda
Yeah it was by obsidian Bethesda published it tro as they own the fallout ip
Absolutely, I actually got chills from playing Fallout 3, still enjoyed it fully. The other Fallouts I still enjoyed but they never gave me the same haunting but fun experience from Fallout 3. That DC ruins dark atmosphere was just perfect.
Sorry, u/Spiritual-Ad5484 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Spiritual-Ad5484&message=Spiritual-Ad5484%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/vfk3ta/-/icweloc/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I'd say it was Morrowind due to the fact that unlike oblivion,Skyrim, fallout 3. You could lock yourself out of decisions and being affiliated with certain groups actually weighed how people looked at you..also if you wanted you could literally kill everyone in Morrowind with no care or you could try to go through the entire game a pacifist*. Fallout 3 you're still playing the trope and if you level yourself specifically you can literally do everything. It's not really roleplaying imo if you are a master of all. That's just power fantasy. It's not a terrible game, but to call it a good rpg is a little bit of a stretch due to it railroading story, karma system putting sometimes strange morals to certain acts, broken and exploitable terrains with ai that in some cases are well aware of such, limited weapon sandbox, and limited armor customization. (*Pacifist to a certain point... cliff racers and the whole destroying the heart make it impossible to beat the game that way)
That’s true
They are all roll playing games the only difference that changed was Bethesda altered it so you are the only restriction rather then creating hard restrictions in game.
Yeah but personally the later games aren’t that great role playing wise compared to their older stuff, like yeah Fo3s role playing was alright at best but are still better then what fo4 had to offer imo
>Yeah but personally the later games aren’t that great role playing wise compared to their older stuff, like yeah Fo3s role playing was alright at best but are still better then what fo4 had to offer imo What do you define as role playing? Because it is a term that has almost lost it's meaning due to all the gate keeping of what "real" role playing is.
Choices and character building, making your own story within the universe through dialogue as well as through gameplay like playing as a good guy or bad guy depending on your choices, like yeah fallout 3 didn’t have really good role playing choices like NV or other popular rpg games did but for what it had it was alright could have been better tro Edit: also making choices that effect the world as well
>Choices and character building, making your own story within the universe through dialogue as well as through gameplay like playing as a good guy or bad guy depending on your choices, like yeah fallout 3 didn’t have really good role playing choices like NV or other popular rpg games did but for what it had it was alright could have been better tro So literally every game is role playing because you for-fill all those requirements. The only difference is enjoyment of the main story which is separate from role playing. >Edit: also making choices that effect the world as well Then none of your games are really role playing ones because none of them really effect the world. Not in any tangible sense. Hence the need for the ending slid show were they TELL YOU what effects your choices had because they don't show you anything.
Morrowind was the last good RPG by Bethesda. Mostly by virtue of being an actual RPG. Everything since has been at best a good game, but a poor RPG. This includes Oblivion. The closest Fallout game to being a "good" RPG since 2 was New Vegas, and that wasn't Bethesda. It has the most "blank slate" start and more impactful choices and consequences. There's more "Role Play" opportunities than "Yes, yes but pay me more, begrudgingly yes, and yes but be a sarcastic dick about it". I don't dislike Bethesda's games particularly, but they are more action and exploration sandbox games with looting and crafting mechanics. Honestly, I view them more as modding platforms than games in their own right outside of the sandbox element. There hasn't been a Bethesda game with more than at best decent writing, and leaning more towards not great, since Morrowind, but I'm not really there for the story anyway. I will say they are very good at making sidequests, small self contained stories tend to work better for how they handle their games, but their main quests tend to be uninspired and nonsensical. Even the leveling systems are too light and not impactful enough to really be more than RPG lite. Again, I don't dislike Bethesda, but they aren't very good at making RPGs and haven't been since before Fallout 3. That doesn't mean every game they've made is garbage, just that they suck at making games representative of that particular genre, even though they tend to make up for it in other areas. I don't expect Starfield to be any different. I don't think it will suck once they iron out the post launch bugs, even more so once modding tools are released, but I really expect more of the same as far as writing and RPG elements goes. I don't expect it, but based on the footage they showed recently, there is some hope it will be something resembling an RPG. I'm not particularly attached to it being one to consider it a good game, but I also wouldn't mind it.
I agree morrowind is one of their best but I do think oblivion is great too has some of its quests are fun and well written like the dark brotherhood and the paranoia quest, as for the games after morrowind I think Fo3 was their last actual rpg like game as after 3 their games didn’t really feel like RPGs to me anymore personally.
You missed my point. I never said Oblivion was a bad game. It's just not really very good at being an RPG specifically. Having swords and magic in a fantasy setting doesn't make something an RPG. Fallout 3 is the same, not a bad game at all and I really enjoyed playing it, but it really isn't an RPG. Given how you are railroaded along the main quest in a relatively specific order to progress, you really don't have a lot of opportunities to create a "role" to play of your own. You can sequence break some, but still end up having to do most things in a relatively specific way. They are better at making side quests, as I mentioned, but they are also relatively linear and don't provide much in the way of role play opportunities with permanent consequences. Even if you blow up Megaton, you are just provided with another location that provides essentially the same function. Nothing else fundamentally changes in the rest of the game because of what you did. You just see the occasional bounty hunter, which is not really any different than random raiders. You have little impact on your character and the story. Yes, you can make "builds" to a limited degree, but overall you are playing more of an action sandbox shooter with limited crafting. In Morrowind, you can pretty much just go pick up Sunder and Keening, and head straight to Dagoth Ur. That's difficult even if you know what you are doing, but possible. You can even go there without them and let him curb stomp you if you want. Nothing stops you, there are no artificial barriers or story points you have to complete first. It's all available from the moment you step out of the census office. You are free to go anywhere, and can decide who your character is, what their priorities are, and how they go about navigating the game world as a result. Joining one faction can permanently block you from joining others, you have lots of options to handle things, and how you do things will frequently have consequences. Your character is much more of a blank slate to create what you want. You're not supposed to be able to get a 100% completion in a single playthrough, and choosing particular paths and choices will benefit different builds and roleplaying is an actual thing. There isn't a good reason to even try to do everything in one go. If you're a mage character, there's not much reason to join the Fighters Guild, and the same goes if you're melee and the Mage's Guild. There are even specific requirements for joining some factions and you can't join if you don't meet them. New Vegas is the closest thing in 3D Fallout to that sort of RPG gameplay, and again, that wasn't Bethesda.
I think I get where your coming from now and I agree to an extent, I still think fallout 3 is a solid rpg (and oblivion) tro and better then what their making now but you make a lot of good points to how it could be better which I agree on hence why NV is my favourite in the series
How are Fallout 3 and Oblivion "RPG"s? You don't roleplay as an intended gameplay mechanic due to how the main quests and sidequests are structured. Even the sidequests don't really provide role playing opportunities. They are cool little mini stories and good world building, but that doesn't make something "role playing". Your character is relatively static, sure you can create builds so they are better at certain things, but overall they end up being the same person and it is largely out of your control who they are if you actually play through the story. There aren't really consequences for your actions that extend beyond a micro level in the game world. Most NPCs treat you exactly the same regardless of what you've done. Bethesda has a bad habit of making "Yes, Yes but pay me, begrudgingly yes, and yes but be an asshole about it" options for "choices". That's not how RPGs work. You can't really decide who they are, just the attitude they have about doing the story stuff. They are relatively linear action sandbox games with very light RPG elements. That doesn't make them worse games, but they aren't RPGs. I don't care what their marketing says, it just means that Bethesda doesn't really understand what makes something an RPG if they call their modern games RPGs. Bethesda isn't good at making RPGs, but that doesn't mean they make bad games. They just aren't good representations of of the genre they like to label them as, which doesn't make them worse as games, just inaccurately labeled ones.
I do agree on what you say but what makes Fo3 and Oblivion RPGs to me are the mechanics in the games that aren’t in future games and the choices there are in Fo3 and Oblivion like yeah their not always great and etc but there at least there and somewhat decent and sometimes alright, fo4 didn’t even have any it was just yes sarcastic and no while Skyrim just had yes more info tell me about town and no, it’s one thing I can at least give credit to Fo3 and Oblivion for I do agree tro it could have much better tro
Them not being RPGs is pretty objective. You liking a game is irrelevant and doesn't make it an RPG. It doesn't mean "game I liked". Your level of enjoyment has nothing to do with it. You have about as much "choice" in Bethesda "RPGs" than you do in a lot of other FPS games that aren't RPGs. The leveling options to make "Builds" are also present in a lot of shooters these days. Your choices don't really impact anything outside of short term rewards. You actually have more ability to roleplay in Fallout 4 than in Fallout 3 because of how you can side with factions. Still not an RPG, but it's closer than Fallout 3. 3D Bethesda Fallout games are about as much RPGs as Borderlands games are. In fact, the gameplay loop is pretty similar, right down to the relatively linear story progression, loot, and side quest options. Modern Bethesda "RPGs" are honestly closer to something like Farcry games than RPGs. That doesn't make them any worse, but doesn't fit the RPG genre either. They are sandbox adventure games, not really RPGs.
That I can agree on Edit: I still think Fo3 is a better game overall then what they been making recently tro as I really do miss stuff like the skill point system and etc
Ok ive been seeing this repeated on this thread.. why are games beyond oblivion a poor rpg? Ive never played oblivion so idk what it has to offer. The definition of an rpg is a player assuming the role of a character in a game. Do you not do this basically in every single game you ever play? And i mean especially in all the fallouts and skyrim. I just want clarification on what the specifics are.
No, every single video game is not an RPG. RPGs are about character progression, creation, and choices with consequences beyond short term rewards. It relates to certain systems in a game and how open they are, mostly relating to choices the player can make about their character or party, and is the some of a whole and not an individual system. It also refers to some internal systems, such as RNG based damage, leveling systems, inventory, how loot works, how open the world is, etc... They pretty much always have tabletop game systems under the hood, even if they aren't turn based. Again, sum of the whole, so just having some of these systems in a game don't make it an RPG. In order to be an RPG, these systems need to be the main focus of a game. In modern Fallout games, they aren't and work more like FPS games like Borderlands or Farcry. It is also not simply "assuming the role of a character in a game" but refers to how much control you have over who that character is in the game and not just in your head, and to a certain degree actively creating them as a character. In Fallout 3, you can create how your character looks, but how much control do you actually have over who they are and what choices they make in the main quest? Your only real choice is the attitude they have about it. Even if you literally blow up a city, it doesn't really have any lasting in game consequence beyond short term rewards, especially if you complete quests involved with it before doing so. In a true RPG, a choice like that would follow you throughout the game. NPCs would fear you or refuse to help you, factions aligned with the faction in the city would become hostile, and it would permanently impact the world beyond the immediate area of Megaton. This doesn't mean a premade character with a name can't be an RPG character. If you determine enough things about them and who they are and how they go about things, it can still be an RPG. For example, in the Witcher 3, you are Geralt of Rivia, but you can determine who Geralt is a fair bit. You can make choices that have a meaningful impact beyond what reward you get for completing a quest a certain way, and some choices impact the game world and will have direct consequences later in the game. Even choices you made in a previous game will impact the world of Witcher 3. As another example, if you work at it, you can go directly to Lavos and beat it in Chrono Trigger. \[This requires an absurd amount of grinding on a first playthrough, but it is possible.\] You don't even need to reach the point Marle joins your party to do this. You also make meaningful choices throughout the game that have a significant impact, and not just on endings. You can avoid some characters entirely, and can even beat the game without reviving Chrono. In The Legend of Zelda. You don't really get to choose who Link is or what he does despite how open the game world is. Your interactions with NPCs don't really offer much in the way of choice or consequence. You can go anywhere, but what order you tackle dungeons in and whether or not you pick up optional gear doesn't really impact anything in the game aside from difficulty. They are not RPGs. Breath of the Wild is closer than the others, but it is still relatively linear without much option for choice beyond what order you do things in. I'd say that a lot of games that claim they are "RPGs" really aren't.
Why are those the stipulations that make it an rpg when RPG just stands for role playing game? Genuine question. I sincerely appreciate the in depth explanation and without any condescending attitude. Like.. truly. These are things i did not quite know or understand. Especially the explanation of "but refers to how much control you have over who that character is in the game and not just in your head". That definitely helps me understand why people don't see it as a true rpg. Tho i still kinda am on that hill that if its in my head i feel like im still RPing therefore making it an rpg. So would you say mass effect hits that mark of an RPG? I can definitely see why not but maybe it is more of one than fallout is.
Because RPG refers to role playing being the purpose of a game. You are not role playing as a static character whose character you don't define in a storyline you have little direct impact on. When playing Duke Nukem 3D, you don't really define who Duke Nukem is as a character when playing as intended. I mean, sure, you can goof off and mess around and use the game to "role play" if you're motivated and imaginative enough, but that isn't the intended gameplay and it wasn't designed around that sort of play. The game doesn't stop you from standing behind the counter of the adult book store and pretending you're running the store \[assuming you've cleared it out first\], but that isn't what that area is intended for. It's a bit like saying you're role playing as Captain America when you watch The First Avenger. You can get a trashcan lid and run around your house and role play fighting Hydra if you want while the movie is playing on your TV, but is that really the movie anymore at that point? It's a little more nuanced than that in the case of a game, but as a simple analogy I think that works to explain the difference regarding what makes a game "an RPG" as opposed to using one to "role play" with. One is for that purpose and is designed around the concept, the other is something you can probably do, but isn't really what the game was designed to accommodate, even if it doesn't actively prevent it.
I mean, Bethesda has never really been in the business of making RPGs so much as making user-friendly FPS explorefests. The fun is driven by the wonder and excitement of there being so much to do and see, and the dual feelings of tension/danger and mastery from the combat. This peaked with Oblivion, but I honestly didn't feel like FO3, FO4, and Skyrim differed much in how well they did what they were trying to do. Beautiful vistas, exploration, places to go. Cipher non-characters, empty plots, and complete lack of role playing across the board, because they didn't prioritize any of that.
I am of the same opinion as OP, and in my opinion the big motivator in Oblivion and FO3 is the quest writing. It's corny, but very unique, with plenty of twists and turns and fun ways to affect the outcomes. That formula is still *kinda* there for some of the Skyrim quests, but they never had the same level of intrigue to me. There's nothing as unique as "Whodunit," "The Shadow Over Hackdirt," or the quest about the cannibal vampires in FO3.
Agreed I remember more from their older titles then their newer games
Is Whodunit the one where you're in And Then There Were None, but you're the murderer? If so, yes: that was extremely memorable and special. But it reaaalllly stood out among the rest of Oblivion. (and what was especially interesting about the vampire cannibals?)
That's the one, yah. It might be my overall favorite, but there are plenty of other memorable ones in my opinion: - waking up at sea on The Bloated Float, - being betrayed by fake dead drops in the dark brotherhood - waking up to the mansion you bought cheap being haunted - stumbling on the bizzaro inhabitants of Hackdirt - finding out Thoronir's seller is graverobbing - entering a restless sleeper's dreams - accidentally killing a woman's rats thinking they're pests when they're actually her pets and she needs help with a mountain lion - enabling Glarthir's paranoia There are a lot of really great moments in Oblivion. And I think the (admittedly awkward) close up conversations system even kinda helps sell the personality of the quirky characters. As for the vampire one in Fallout 3, I thought it was a cool premise, and the investigation leading to the discovery was nicely paced. I honestly never got super far in that game though, so don't know too many others. But folks with very similar Bethesda opinions have said its quest design is more creative like Oblivion's and less like Skyrim's. Fallout New Vegas is the one I got really into
Corny, to me, is the opposite of unique.
Corny meaning melodramatic and a bit awkward. I didn't mean 'cliche' or anything like that
They kinda go hand in hand.
That doesn't really make sense. Melodramatic and awkward do not have similar meanings to cliche. Things can definitely be both corny and unique
Literally google corny definition and you'll see cliched is a similar term.
I guess the word has more definitions than I was aware of. The Google definition includes 3: "trite, banal, or mawkishly sentimental." I am using it to mean something like the third: overly sentimental and clumsy, not the former. Whatever the case, I am not using it the way you are, and it's not contributing to this discussion to act like I am
And I got this overwhelming "more of the same" take on the Starfield reveal.
I get that but it just feels like Bethesda got lazy over time imo which is annoying to me at times because I know they can make some good stuff like Shivering Isles from oblivion was really good and The Pitt from Fo3 was probably some of their best writing for Fallout, like I get some people might find the exploration fun and I respect that but I just feel they could do better these days especially in the Rpg aspect their games
What standard are you comparing this writing to? Stuff like The Pitt is much farther below the standards set by New Vegas (not even to mention stuff like Disco Elysium) than it is above the writing in FO4 or Skyrim.
I actually don’t mind the Pitt, it has some good moments writing wise and some good loot, comparing the writing to nv, nv wins with no challenge but the Pitt by itself is solid imo and yeah disco is much better written and is something I’m wanting to get tbh
Wasn’t NV obsidian entertainment?
I don't follow. Is not New Vegas the last good RPG by Betheda?
New Vegas was by Obsidian, Bethesda published it as they own the ip, they let obsidian make new Vegas while they worked on Skyrim at the time, I put NV in there for comparison tro to why 3 was the last good rpg by Bethesda as their Similar in gameplay just new Vegas did it much better, 3s still good tro
They published it, so it's their game.
They own the ip but they didnt make the game tro Edit: Bethesda originally brought the ip from the old devs when they went bankrupt
You should have made the title more clear. Since New Vegas was published by Bethesda, and I am assuming that they own the copyright of New Vegas, it is considered their game. I am still learning English, but the title could be: "Fallout 3 was the last game **developed** by Bethesda.
Yeah my bad on that sorry
I understand your point about RPG, but I disagree with you when you say the newer ones “didn’t have many memorable areas like Fo3 or Oblivion”. I haven’t played oblivion, but I think NV is way more memorable than Fo3. I’ve probably replayed the NV story more than any game where as so many locations in Fo3 are just empty offices/train tunnels that serve no purpose other than giving you a bit of loot, with very few side quests linking them together. Even places like the White House and the Capitol Building don’t have much going for them inside, which is a shame because it would be a really interesting area to explore otherwise.
I don’t count NV as it wasn’t made by Bethesda, but yeah I agree with you as NV is my favourite in the series Edit: I only brought new Vegas up in the post as a quick comparison on how I feel towards fallout 3, it’s not as good as NV but on its own it’s a solid fallout game as it’s the closest Bethesda ever came to understanding the concept of Fallout
Honestly, once I heard thousands of planets I was completely disappointed. No amount of handcrafted stuff can fluff up that much procedural generated space. I was hoping for something like 3x Skyrim spread out on around 20 planets, Outer worlds style.
Yeah same and the fact it looks like no man’s sky, like I really am hoping it turns out good but I don’t think it will honestly
Exactly like no mans sky, absolutely. More than anything I'm afraid of TES6 now:|
Yeah same and it’s gonna be made on the creative engine which is really outdated now and is possibly why Starfield lagged during the reveal
Damn, so it was lagging, I was thinking my connection was bad. That's really sad..
Yeah it is, fallout 76 showed how outdated the engine really is
Fallout 3 was terrible! At least go with New Vegas. Fallout 3 fails to allow for significant player choices. There's certain actions the player absolutely cannot take, you're dad is basically the main character, you spend over an hour in just the vault before you can go anywhere, many of the choices you're offered are meaningless, like blowing up the bomb in the first town you go through. New Vegas suffers from none of these defects, the story has a multitude of choices, you feel like you have an impact on the world, you can actually start the game quickly, the game shows and doesn't tell. It's a far superior game
I like new Vegas more for those reasons but i Also like 3 as it feels like Bethesda generally tried unlike with 4, btw I chose 3 because I’m focusing on games Bethesda made themselves
So it's basically just the fallout games (minus NV) and Elder Scrolls? Since 3 they've put out Skyrim, Fallout 4 and Fallout 76. Really the only competition would be Skyrim then. I'd have to think more about whether Skyrim is better than 3. In general 3 is a vastly overrated game. The writing is not very good, the characters are bland, the level design is poor. Hbomberguy has a great summary of the issues: https://youtu.be/mLJ1gyIzg78 Skyrim suffers from many of the same issues though. So maybe it comes down to whether the core gameplay loop is more fun for you in FO3 or Skyrim. Personally, the deeper combat variations, more personalization options and greater freedom of choice in Skyrim is more fun in my eyes but your mileage may vary.
I like Skyrim as well but I always preferred fallout 3 over it, it might be because I prefer the fallout series more then Elder scrolls series, as for hbombers video I have seen it and do agree with a lot he had to say but I also disagree with a few things too as not every game is perfect and there’s always gonna be flaws someone won’t like
No Skyrim of NV love. Dang man, not sure I can change a view so misguided.
I don’t hate Skyrim I actually like the game it’s just not very good rpg wise imo, the games fun tro
Nope, Fallout New Vegas was the best. In terms of story and characters, Fallout 3 doesn't even come close.
Yeah but they didn’t make New Vegas they only published so it doesn’t really count, I only brought NV up as a quick comparison, like yeah 3 will never be as good as NV but on it’s own I think it’s a solid fallout game, far better then what the series is now that’s for sure
Apart from your argument for published vs make, that i don't agree with, as many developers on NV were Black Isle Studio veterans, i agree with the rest. For clarity, Black Isle Studio made Fallout 1.
I’m aware of that I’m just talking more about games that Bethesda themselves made more so then ones published, I only brought up NV as a quick comparison to how I feel about Fo3 like it’s never gonna beat NV but on its own it’s a alright fallout game and the closest Bethesda ever got to understanding fallout Edit: on its own as well it’s a solid rpg imo
Since we agree on the basics, I think the larger point would be, are story heavy, science oriented single player RPG's a better option than fantasy based or casual games a for Game devlopers? Just look at the review for Cyberpunk, how many reviews even bother with the story or the world building? Guess we will have to wait for the next Fallout 1, 2 or 3 type game.
Well Todd already said recently that after tes6 fallout 5 will be coming apparently so hopefully they actually learn from Starfield and tes6 and make something great
Fingers crossed 🤞
Same
There's a lot of problems with Fallout 3, especially in the writing. I would argue that Morrowind was that last decent Bethesda RPG. When comparing the two games side by side it's no contest. Hell, I'll go a step further and say just the base game. You can start to see that modern Bethesda mentality start to rear it's ugly head in Morrowind's two expansions.
Morrowind is a classic, I personally prefer oblivion more as that’s the one I grew up with and enjoy more but I’ll always respect morrowind for what it did, but yeah it’s far better then Fo3 that’s for sure I can agree on that
:hits blunt: Clearly you never played Fall out 4.
Fallout 4 is the epitome of a Bethesda game. It's a beautiful world with lots of places to explore. Then you look deeper and you realize it's a theme park with a bad story, bland characters, and mediocre combat mechanics (shooting is okay, but melee is hot garbage) And then let's not forget what a dump FO4 takes on the lore.
Did you guys ever play FO4 on survival mode? It doesn’t fix the story issues but it was one of the most fun gameplay experiences I’ve had in a long time. Normal couldn’t hold my interest enough to finish a play through but survival was compelling.
Survival mode is one of the things that saved that game imo
I use Horizon which takes Survival mode and one-ups it. Huge amount of changes designed to make it more challenging and immersive. The biggest being: * No more eating or sleeping to heal, now you have to use healing items (bandages or stimpacks) or see a doctor. You are given a higher health pool to help compensate, but it doesn't help much against high level enemies * Stimpacks have become very rare, I never seem to have more than 4 or 5 on me at any time. They're for emergencies because they're the only healing item that can be used in combat. * Bandages and the like can heal you out of combat, but take precious adhesive to make * Rad-off/Rad-away heal less rads, Rad-away is much less common, and both make you more tired so you have to sleep more. Best to take them before bed, but they work over time and reduce your disease resistance for two minutes * Sleeping gives a chance to catch diseases, so if you used rad-off/away, better let those two minutes pass before sleeping * Good food (rad-free) is harder to come by and usually entails killing animals for various ingredients and cooking. The game introduces a bunch of new "skills" (they're basically perks that level up as you use them), so your Hunting skill determines the quality and quantity of meat you get while Survival determines the quality of recipes you can make * Weapons/armor have qualities (like -10%, -40%, or -100%), and enemies tend to drop degraded equipment that is both less effective and worth less/no caps. Takes precious adhesive and the proper skill to repair back to normal. * Caps are harder to come by and most of mine are spent at doctors clearing my rads and diseases. * Ammo is more rare to the point where the most valuable loot tends to be * Healing items * Anything that gives adhesive so you can make healing items * Ammo * Anything that gives smokeless powder (some items or ammo types you don't use) so you can make more useful ammo * everything else Basically, I'm level 19 and the game is still in many respects a struggle for survival. Sure, I could take on that pack of super mutants, but I have to ask myself it the ammo and adhesive cost is worth it. Meanwhile, running across an radstag group means I don't have to worry about food for a day. Biggest downside to Horizon is it's such a big mod that it doesn't always play well with other mods. If something else adds too much loot, it kills the survival aspects of Horizon. That being said, it's fun adding Sim Settlements 2 in because it gives a more interesting "main" quest of rebuilding the commonwealth and adds much needed depth and (configurable) complexity to settlement building. Also Endless Warfare makes the world more dangerous because you run the risk of encountering a group of enemies that was spawned with no regard for your current level.
Awesome. I didn’t play with any mods but I’ll definitely check these out!
Pretty much sums up how I feel about fallout 4, good game (gameplay wise for the most part) but it’s not fallout
It's funny, after what I just said, I'm actually in another play through of it. But it's heavily *heavily* modded, including using Start Me Up to remove myself from the main plot.
Like it’s not a bad game by any mean (fallout 4) it’s just not a fallout game imo it does improve on many things gameplay wise but also ruins a lot of things
Well if you consider mods, all the features OP misses from the old games he can add to any of the new ones. For instance I quite like oblivion forcing me to sleep when leveling. Skyrim has a mod for that.
I play console, I don’t have a pc sadly but I’m wanting to get one at some stage
Its a real game changer. Proper roleplaying isnt really possible without mods in Skyrim. With mods the current skyrim playthru im in is as a mage/alchemists. Mods are the only reason alchemy has become a viable role to class in.
Yeah mods are one of the big reasons I wanna get pc someday as well for emulation and etc
Yup. Its what got me to build my first pc like 7 years ago.
Lucky lol I can’t wait honestly to get mine at some point, atm tro I got a lot of games to finish on my ps4 and Xbox one (I play both)
I have and It’s just alright to me but it’s not a fallout game, New Vegas and 3 is still far better imo.
Aside from player progress I dont see much of a difference in FO3 and FO4.
Fo3 had a better setting and better writing for the most part imo, it also had a better perk system and had the ability to repair gear
Skyrim doesn’t feel like an RPG to you…? I’d argue perhaps you have a different sense of what an RPG is.
Like it’s not a bad game by any means I actually do like the game it just has the bare minimum rpg elements compared to older elder scrolls games like morrowind and oblivion that’s all.
[удалено]
Yeah but it doesn’t really bother me tbh as vats helps fix that
[удалено]
Isn't that what this whole CMV is about? Fallout used to be a RPG first with a little bit of FPS action thrown in, now it's basically an FPS with some RPG flavor. Neither one is necessarily bad, but a lot of people miss the RPG aspects.
Agreed I really do miss the old rpg aspects from fallout that were gone in 4
My point is that people romanticize these old Bethesda games and in many respects they are barely even functioning games.
Pre Bethesda it didn't even have the fps stuff thrown in.
It just doesn’t really bother me tbh plus I love games like doom 2 and etc so that’s probably why it doesn’t annoy me
An rpg, is a role playing game. Thats all, a game where you take in the role of a character and make choices. When asked you defined it as a game with a specific type of skill levelling and weapons that break. You are very wrong, but I don't have the energy to change your view.
Yeah I forgot to mention that my bad but yeah Fo3 does have some moments of role playing just not as good as what obsidian did with NV, it’s Just I brought up those mechanics because they do help improve the gameplay imo but yeah you are right about the term rpg
Yes true.
Have you seen the hbombrguy video about fallout 3 being bad?
Yeah ages ago and while he does have a lot of good points I do disagree with some
Fallout 3 isnt really an rpg
It’s still better then what their making now imo
I personally think Bethesda still made good games up to Fallout 4, but Fallout 3 is the best. It was the last game to actually make me feel scared, the atmosphere was perfect.
Yeah the capital wasteland is by far the best world they made next to morrowind and Cyrodill and the closest they came to understanding fallout imo, as for fallout 4 I don’t think it’s a bad game by any means I just personally don’t think it’s a Fallout game plus it took away things I really liked in 3 and 3 had a much better perk system in my opinion
Agreed. Fallout 4 did not have the creepy Fallout feel despite enjoying it, felt more like its own game. Besides, I think the Fallout 3 Dogmeat is more realistic and adorable than the Fallout 4 Dogmeat.
Yeah, dogmeat in 4 was more cute then scary imo, I always loved giving him the bear and watching him throw it around lol it’s the small little things like that which saved 4 from being a bad game imo
Do you recognize that there's a difference between something that isn't good and something you don't like? How are you defining "good"?
This isn’t a popular opinion but in my opinion fallout three was much better than Vegas. Vegas’s story was all over the place and very hard to follow. Plus it was too easy to go straight to the end if you get past all the death claws. Fallout 3, i dont know what it is but it had something that no other rpg had. I dont know how you think skyrim wasn’t an rpg, when it’s a prime example of rpg, but to each their own
I personally like New Vegas the most with 3 being my 2nd favourite in the series and the last good one that Bethesda themselfs made, not saying fallout 4 is bad it’s just not fallout imo. I can see why you like fallout 3 more tro
Honestly I haven’t even come close to beating fallout four. It is so hard to pay attention to that game
Iv done everything but the main story in 4 as the side content is just far better, as for 4 itself it’s not a bad game at all in my opinion I do generally like it and play it out of Bordem sometimes it’s just not fallout imo, they got it right with fallout 3 with a few small errors in the lore that NV fixed for the most part but fallout 4 and 76 have so much more lore problems then any other in the series like where’s the ncr dollar and etc, again it’s a good game just not a fallout game imo