Fallout 76. Worried? Excited? Both?

[Cheesegear]

Who's mad? I hope you don't think I'm mad.

I wasn't talking about you, there.

Pretty sure you just said the last 5 minutes of ME sucked, seems they do go hand in hand.

That isn't what I said.

You were talking about the ending as if that was all people were interested in

Why is New Vegas better than Fallout 3?
If your first answer is "Because multiple endings Because (it feels like) actions have consequences." as posters have said, then we're already at a disagreement.

The whole thing goes together.

The cue cards is effectively "But what happens when Aragorn is King? What happens to Legolas and Gimli? I need to know the consequences of their actions."
It doesn't matter what happens after Aragorn is crowned King, because the story is over.

How many people do you know who stop reading a book at the last chapter and say "I don't care how this ends, I enjoyed reading the book itself!"

That is literally how The Dark Tower ends seven books. Stephen King literally puts in a bit, shattering the fourth wall, before the last Chapter of seven books.

Do you not enjoy books? Films? Serialized television series? Have you never been emotionally invested in a plot or character in any of the above?

Of course I have. When it's good. When it's bad...Well, they're fictional characters, it doesn't actually matter. Move on.

If you've not felt that before...I'm sorry for you, I guess. Maybe go see a psychologist?

Maybe it's because I've seen a psychologist that it's so easy to let go of fictional characters when they start sucking.
Everything in a video game is scripted. The 'consequences' of your actions were already pre-determined well before you picked up the game. Your choices don't matter. At all. Because it's a scripted game.

You will never have true agency in any game. Because everything you can do, is what the game-makers let you do.

And I agree with Cheesegear: Why let the story bother you? If bad writing is going to keep you from enjoying a game, you're going to find a lot less joy in gaming than you otherwise might. Ultimately, the older you get, the less uncritical reception you're going to give to anything; movies, TV, people, anything.

I gave up on games having good writing about a decade ago. If a game has good writing, that's great. But it isn't a negative, if it has bad writing, if the gameplay is still good, because it's game first, story second.

See, I thought Fallout 3's ending was narrative; The game begins with your birth, ends with your death. Closed loop. Structurally, it makes sense. But, apparently it matters a great deal to people, whether their character is dead or not dead after the game is over - and they no longer get to play anyway. So much so that the ending had to be changed.

Sure, but I don't think the fallacy isn't applicable in this case. Lots of people watch reality TV.

Yeah, and it's really easy to know why.

[Rynjin]

Just because someone prioritizes other features in a game above the narrative does not mean that person is suffering from some kind of mental illness.

If they lack the empathic capacity to form emotional attachments, that might indicate otherwise, is my point.

[Misery Esquire]

Is there any actual news in that video? It seems like a bunch of supposition based on leaks we already knew about. I only watched the first 3 minutes or so before I got bored though.

No, it's a guy's opinion based on the same "source" that caused the start of this thread. We still have nothing from Bethesda aside from the trailer. People continue building their own hype (or outrage) train wholesale.

[NeoVid]

If I'm playing a game because it's an RPG, I'm there for the story. I'm a huge minmaxer in RPGs just so I can minimize the amount of time I have to spend with combat getting in the way of the plot progression.

Ironically, that means that since Bethesda games don't feel like RPGs with a story to follow, I spend a lot more time in them doing random stuff. Though it appears that's totally normal for Bethesda players.

The game was over. It was fun. I spent a lot of hours over three games having a fun time. The last five minutes sucked. But that doesn't negate the other hundred hours, does it?

ME3's ending actually did retroactively taint my enjoyment of the hundreds of hours I'd put into the series.

I put a massive amount of weight on getting satisfying conclusions to stories that interest me, enough that weak endings have ruined several film and comic series I followed. I'm actually kind of jealous that you have the ability to ignore whether a story has a cohesive resolution, since my demand for them has gotten in the way of my fun many times.

[Anteros]

Well, my point is that slavish devotion to what the peanut-gallery commentariat chooses to post about won't get you any closer to making a great game, because you're never going to get a clear vision, and nobody has infinite money and time with which to develop a game. At day's end, you need to make triage decisions as to where your development dollars go, and by any objective measure, Bethesda's decisions have produced a successful game. While maybe some of those decisions have displeased a vocal percentage of the franchise's original following, it's pretty clear that Bethesda have gained far more than they have lost, in terms of overall audience.

Sure, which is why Fifa, Madden, etc have all been the exact same game with yearly releases for 10 years. Because they appeal to the lowest common denominator. Maybe that's what you want for Fallout, but it's not for me. If you enjoy stuff like that then I'm glad for you, but I'm still sad to see the types of games that I enjoy die to make way for it.

And I agree with Cheesegear: Why let the story bother you? If bad writing is going to keep you from enjoying a game, you're going to find a lot less joy in gaming than you otherwise might. Ultimately, the older you get, the less uncritical reception you're going to give to anything; movies, TV, people, anything.

I really don't find "you'll understand when you're older" to be a compelling argument. Or anything but condescending really. I doubt you're older than me anyway.

That aside, of course bad writing is going to bother someone who only views the content for the sake of being immersed in the story, and I can't believe you'd seriously argue otherwise. If you don't care about the stories then why can't you just go play Rust, CoD, or any of the other billion games that aren't story driven, and leave the story driven franchises to people who enjoy them? I suspect you care about the stories here more

Sure, but I don't think the fallacy isn't applicable in this case. Lots of people watch reality TV. That doesn't make it good. Few people go to see Shakespeare plays. That doesn't make them bad. Now I'll concede that popularity is more pertinent in evaluating the merit of art than, say, science, economics, or politics, but I still would rather operating on the undertaking that nobody has the right to tell someone else what they ought to enjoy. If you really like watching The Bachelorette, who am I to tell you that it's utter tripe?

You literally just told me what I ought to enjoy. In the last paragraph.

Just because someone prioritizes other features in a game above the narrative does not mean that person is suffering from some kind of mental illness. Did you ever play Space Ace or Dragon's Lair? They had great visual effects, but I can't say they were great games, because the gameplay in them was crap. In my opinion, the dialogue tree navigation and story in RPGs is a lot like Space Ace: It's not gameplay, it's just a series of inputs to get to the end, and see what happens. If that's what you want out of a game, I really do recommend picking up Obsidian Entertainment's back-catalog.

I don't believe I implied any sort of mental illness for disagreeing with me? At the very least, I didn't intend to. I understand that you don't like these sorts of RPG games with dialogue trees and such, but Fallout has traditionally always appealed to the audience that does enjoy these things. Of course we're sad to see one of our favorite franchises stop appealing to us. Wouldn't you be?

As for Obsidian, I'd say that anyone you're even having this conversation with in the first place probably grew up with their games and has already played them.

That is literally how The Dark Tower ends seven books. Stephen King literally puts in a bit, shattering the fourth wall, before the last Chapter of seven books.

Yes, and I hate that series as a result. All that build up and world building, and he uses the worst ending possible. The whole series was ruined. You're not winning any points with me with that argument.

Then again, even King admits that he's horrible at writing endings. It's why I avoid his work.

ME3's ending actually did retroactively taint my enjoyment of the hundreds of hours I'd put into the series.

I put a massive amount of weight on getting satisfying conclusions to stories that interest me, enough that weak endings have ruined several film and comic series I followed. I'm actually kind of jealous that you have the ability to ignore whether a story has a cohesive resolution, since my demand for them has gotten in the way of my fun many times.

Mine too, and it's the reason I haven't re-played the series. We put an incredible amount of effort for hundreds of hours to customize our characters and our stories because we were told that our decisions really mattered. Then, at the end of the day, they just had us pick our ending based and nothing we had ever done made any difference at all. It instantly took the series from my favorite of all time to just good/mediocre.

[Cheesegear]

Sure, which is why Fifa, Madden, etc have all been the exact same game with yearly releases for 10 years. Because they appeal to the lowest common denominator.

No they don't. They appeal to people who like sports games. However, if you look real closely, a lot of them have begun to mirror RPGs; In that players have stats, and your goal is to either
a) Stack your team with the players with the best stats, or
b) Level your players up 'til they have the best stats.
Sports games literally play the Skinner Box, just like everything else. The difference is that Football, Hockey or Gridiron is a game that people understand without needing 40 minutes of tutorials before they can start playing. Sports games mirror the rules in real life. People who pick up Sports games already know the mechanics of the game before they've even picked up the controller.

Otherwise, please define what you mean by 'lowest common denominator'. I have a feeling you're being offensive, and what you really mean is 'Widest Market'.

If you don't care about the stories then why can't you just go play Rust, CoD, or any of the other billion games that aren't story driven

What if I don't like the mechanics/gameplay of those games?

Yes, and I hate that series as a result. All that build up and world building, and he uses the worst ending possible. The whole series was ruined. You're not winning any points with me with that argument.

...And that reasoning is bizarre to me. You're going full 'Destination over Journey'.

Then, at the end of the day, they just had us pick our ending based and nothing we had ever done made any difference at all.

Just like real life. *rimshot*

[Brookshw]

Why is New Vegas better than Fallout 3?
If your first answer is "Because multiple endings Because (it feels like) actions have consequences." as posters have said, then we're already at a disagreement.

The point about the epilogues, using examples from F1 & NV, was to demonstrate the series included moral story elements in its decision making and consequences and wasn't just a slapstick set of zany adventures in a wasteland (which it does have plenty of in each iteration), the devs gave more thought than that to the game and created a well rounded experience. If your take away from that was "different endings" then we're not in disagreement, we're not having the same conversation,..... though I suppose we are is disagreement about whether from a design perspective long term implication vs. Immediate result is a better way to explore the ramifications of the decision making process.

I certainly hope we find out more about how they've approached the story side prior to 76's launch.

[Winthur]

Although I honestly understand the notion of not caring about video game writing much anymore nowadays, it is still a fairly disingenuous argument to say it doesn't matter. Here's why I think so:
Entire games have been sold by advertising a writer. Obsidian Entertainment's marketing schtick for a while was being able to say "written by Chris Avellone". After MCA's departure from Obsidian, his involvement in games like Battletech brought the games some fame solely by household name alone. For people who care, names like Chris Avellone, George Ziets, Amy Hennig etc. denote quality video game writing.
Even if the writer isn't as prolific, the writer team on any RPG project will still be huge. Add to it having to hire people like voice actors to be able to put the writing to life. And, of course, for every writing team there is an editor team.
Many RPGs even pride themselves on the amount of words put into the script, though that's sometimes their folly.

We can pretend that one shouldn't care for video game writing in the same way that one shouldn't care for graphics. But nevertheless, I don't think you can argue that writers haven't been an important part of game development throughout the years. Therefore, people will complain if the game's writing has issues. The ME3 scandal wasn't merely because of the "Red / Blue / Green" endings, it was because the official responses from BioWare indirectly called their own clientele "whining children" even though everyone was promised something greater than that - these games were supposed to give us an actual reactive world, and instead the outcome was predestined no matter if we imported the save with different decisions or not. David Gaider - a writer for whom I ultimately had great respect way back when - wrote passive-aggressive tweets defending his team's questionable writing decisions in the two big BioWare franchises.

Same way certain portions of the fanbase, in my opinion, had the right to feel somewhat disappointed when Pete Hines of Bethesda tells you a writing inconsistency is irrelevant because ultimately, Fallout is a colourful, unrealistic world where radiation works like magic and mutants hop around. Except the inconsistency directly contradicts game canon. Retcons are alright if you can communicate with your fanbase about them in a better way than just saying no, the guy who said he invented Jet was lying all along and honestly why would you trust his story given that he's a creepy teenage rapist drug baron? What else might he have been lying about? and pretending people who take issue with this being a pretty lame cop-out are nitpickers. You could have said anything like "one of the level designers committed a hiccup when we designed this area", but no, you just tell people nothing in your world makes sense, it doesn't matter, and you shouldn't think about it, and if you do care, you're stupid. What message does that send to the client?

[Anteros]

Otherwise, please define what you mean by 'lowest common denominator'. I have a feeling you're being offensive, and what you really mean is 'Widest Market'.

These terms mean the same thing, so sure. The games are homogenized to appeal to the widest audiences possible. They take no risks and they offer nothing unique. They're not without value, but there's a reason that EA signed contracts with the major sports leagues so that no one else could make a similar game. Any time you water a product down to appeal to everyone, the product will suffer. You'd be hard pressed to find any example of art or entertainment that was actually improved by homogenization. It's just a sad fact that it's more profitable to make a game that's mediocre to everyone than to make one that's exceptional to its target market.

[The_Jackal]

Sure, which is why Fifa, Madden, etc have all been the exact same game with yearly releases for 10 years. Because they appeal to the lowest common denominator. Maybe that's what you want for Fallout, but it's not for me. If you enjoy stuff like that then I'm glad for you, but I'm still sad to see the types of games that I enjoy die to make way for it.

Sorry, wrong. What's expected of a sports game is wildly different than what's expected for other titles. You don't have any real lattitude in terms of how you can shake up the gameplay in a sports title. It's a fixed format, like racing games. Those games are, for all intents and purposes, sausage-factory remakes of the same game, year after year. Apples to oranges comparisons will not avail you in this argument.

I really don't find "you'll understand when you're older" to be a compelling argument. Or anything but condescending really. I doubt you're older than me anyway.

I'm 45, you don't have to guess.

That aside, of course bad writing is going to bother someone who only views the content for the sake of being immersed in the story, and I can't believe you'd seriously argue otherwise.

Try me.

If you don't care about the stories then why can't you just go play Rust, CoD, or any of the other billion games that aren't story driven, and leave the story driven franchises to people who enjoy them? I suspect you care about the stories here more.

It's not that I don't care about the stories. I like a good story. I loved Bioshock Infinite, I liked most of the player arcs in SW:TOR. And Fallout 4 had some good writing in it. I liked the character of Hancock, I liked the U.S.S. Constitution quest, and I liked the Silver Shroud arc, and some other bits too. But I refused to let bad writing get in the way of enjoying a good game, because gameplay is what I bought the game for. But as for why I don't play Rust or COD, I don't have to. I'm not the one lobbying to turn the Fallout franchise back into a "True RPG". I like what Bethesda is doing, and I'm willing to forgive them their faults, because there's no game on the market which offers the combination of freedom, exploration, customization, and production values that Bethesda has.

You literally just told me what I ought to enjoy. In the last paragraph.

No, I didn't. I told you that just because you think the bad Fallout 4 story is a deal breaker doesn't make it a bad game. I told you, if deep, involved stories, and meaningful decisions are important to you, you're far better served by buying Obsidian's back catalog.

I don't believe I implied any sort of mental illness for disagreeing with me? At the very least, I didn't intend to. I understand that you don't like these sorts of RPG games with dialogue trees and such, but Fallout has traditionally always appealed to the audience that does enjoy these things. Of course we're sad to see one of our favorite franchises stop appealing to us. Wouldn't you be?

The mental illness remark was directed at Ryjin, who wrote:

Yes, narratives are important to people. This is not news. People have always enjoyed a story.

Do you not enjoy books? Films? Serialized television series? Have you never been emotionally invested in a plot or character in any of the above?

None of those are different in that aspect than a video game. People get attached to characters, because they are enjoyable, or relatable, or just well written enough to feel real within the context of the fiction. That is the purpose of a narrative in a game, or character writing in any OTHER medium, really.

If you've not felt that before...I'm sorry for you, I guess. Maybe go see a psychologist?

I felt the remark deserved a retort.

[QUOTE]As for Obsidian, I'd say that anyone you're even having this conversation with in the first place probably grew up with their games and has already played them.[QUOTE]

I haven't touched an Interplay game since Baldur's Gate II, TBH. Not my cup of tea. But Pillars of Eternity released a new expansion recently.

These terms mean the same thing, so sure. The games are homogenized to appeal to the widest audiences possible. They take no risks and they offer nothing unique. They're not without value, but there's a reason that EA signed contracts with the major sports leagues so that no one else could make a similar game. Any time you water a product down to appeal to everyone, the product will suffer. You'd be hard pressed to find any example of art or entertainment that was actually improved by homogenization. It's just a sad fact that it's more profitable to make a game that's mediocre to everyone than to make one that's exceptional to its target market.

Except "lowest common denominator" is incredibly snobbish and pejorative, and in any case, I don't agree with your premise that's what Bethesda is trying to do (ie: broaden appeal at any price). In fact, I've found their progression in their game design has been remarkably consistent: They've tried to create broad, sprawling worlds, with lots of detail in which the player is encouraged to become immersed. They wouldn't pack their games with so much text behind hacked terminals if they just wanted to make a big, dumb post-apocalypse sandbox. Now they have spent a tremendous amount of effort improving their games' production values, and that has a price, but I wouldn't conflate that with homogenization, it's just a market trend that has taken hold consistently across the triple-A gaming industry.

[NeoVid]

And again, I'm left wondering why the hell there's still no Fallout 1 & 2 Remastered Edition. Use the original scripts, update the mechanics and graphics to something along the lines of the recent Shadowrun games, get the publisher money.

...Damn. I just now thought that if they copied the Shadowrun games, we'd end up with player-made Fallout scenarios that don't require all the effort and resources of modding. Shut up and take my money.

[LibraryOgre]

And again, I'm left wondering why the hell there's still no Fallout 1 & 2 Remastered Edition. Use the original scripts, update the mechanics and graphics to something along the lines of the recent Shadowrun games, get the publisher money.

...Damn. I just now thought that if they copied the Shadowrun games, we'd end up with player-made Fallout scenarios that don't require all the effort and resources of modding. Shut up and take my money.

The main issue would be getting Harebrained Schemes the rights to it.

[gooddragon1]

And again, I'm left wondering why the hell there's still no Fallout 1 & 2 Remastered Edition. Use the original scripts, update the mechanics and graphics to something along the lines of the recent Shadowrun games, get the publisher money.

...Damn. I just now thought that if they copied the Shadowrun games, we'd end up with player-made Fallout scenarios that don't require all the effort and resources of modding. Shut up and take my money.

How could you possibly suggest something like that? Don't you know that you're torturing me with these fleeting hopes. Someday i'll make a game on defold... some day :(

[Cheesegear]

It's not that I don't care about the stories. I like a good story. [...] But I refused to let bad writing get in the way of enjoying a good game, because gameplay is what I bought the game for.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Except "lowest common denominator" is incredibly snobbish and pejorative...

That's what I said.

[Starbuck_II]

And again, I'm left wondering why the hell there's still no Fallout 1 & 2 Remastered Edition. Use the original scripts, update the mechanics and graphics to something along the lines of the recent Shadowrun games, get the publisher money.

...Damn. I just now thought that if they copied the Shadowrun games, we'd end up with player-made Fallout scenarios that don't require all the effort and resources of modding. Shut up and take my money.

Will we be able to shoot the pick pocketing kids?
I hated that factor.

I admit I ran to the power armor place in FO 2 as soon as a I could. Made that mother molerat easier (and the aliens).
Wonder if they will mess with that.
Ooh, can they add more companions?
So many possibilities if they did redo it.

Can they remaster Fallout tactics: so many bugs. Like those turrets.

[Inarius]

I suppose for me I'm fairly interested in seeing what exactly its going to be. If it is a survival game that's fine and I'll probably get it because I enjoy building stuff in those. I probably won't preorder it though because I only preorder stuff when I have a reasonable expectation of what I'm getting.

For instance Obisidian makes good single player RPGs with a usually strong central plot and a ton of bugs at launch so if they announce one of those its a pretty easy buy because I know I'll probably like it even if it is a bug ridden mess at launch. If Obsidian announced they were making a strategy game or shooter I'd take a wait and see attitude. Bethesda on the other hand does big open world exploration single player RPGs that I always enjoy... which a multiplayer survival game isn't so yeah I'll wait and see.

[NeoVid]

Will we be able to shoot the pick pocketing kids?
I hated that factor.

I'm told the solution to NPC pickpockets was to walk past them after emptying your inventory of everything except live grenades. I hope this is correct, since it's the greatest answer imaginable.

[Winthur]

Will we be able to shoot the pick pocketing kids?
I hated that factor.

Planting live C4 or dynamite in the children's pockets (or walking past them with it on and letting them steal it) will get rid of the problem without ruining your Karma. You can also pass the doorways with combat mode on where they can't steal anything. FO2 Restoration Project adds a sidequest where you find the kids an orphanage and they stop stealing. I think murdering Flick (whom they give everything they stole back) stops them from stealing, too, and doesn't turn the town hostile.

[Triaxx]

Flick's also got the .44 Revolver, which with the Speedloader is an awesome sidearm.

[Erloas]

I'm going to bet that everyone that says "all sports games are just a copy every year" don't actually play any of them. I'm not a big sports fan, but I've been playing football games (along with just about every other type of game out there) since... well at least the NES, though I think I played some of the older versions like Atari and Intellivision later. I don't buy them all, no even close, but the progress they've made in what you can do and how is obvious. They may not change the basic mechanics of the game but they change the way the game plays all the time. They are popular because the sports they are based on are popular, not because "they've been dumbed down so anyone can play them." Not knowing the right types of plays to call in the right situation will get you handily beat and there is no "best play" every time. Though they have taken to giving recommendations because every people to watch the games regularly don't necessarily know what is actually going on.

They put the effort into making the games better every year because there is market demand for it, not because "people will buy the same game year after year."

As for reworking the original Fallout games like they did for Shadowrun... that is Wastelands 2. Which I still think is a better Fallout 3 than Fallout 3 ever was.

As for the actual gam at hand... no idea. I've tried multiple times and I've just never been able to find a Bethesda game I enjoy. As much as I liked the Fallout setting, it just seemed to have lost it's charm when put in the hands of Bethesda. Their storytelling also never pulled me in enough to want to finish any of the games, maybe they get better but they lost me before that point.

[Winthur]

They put the effort into making the games better every year because there is market demand for it, not because "people will buy the same game year after year."

You list the differences between the Atari and Intellivision games and the modern games, which is kinda disingenuous. Even without stuff like Sensible Soccer in mind, you can still tell that, obviously, the quasi-isometric FIFA 96 that could have been played with a regular computer mouse or a 2 button joystick is going to be different from FIFA 2006, but aside from that, I think that unless you're a die-hard competitive FIFA player, you will find that the marked difference between the games is the graphics and player licenses available. I think that a lot of the people who play these games buy into the ability to play an authentic squad. I can appreciate that Real Madrid looks authentic and Cristiano Ronaldo has special tricks and controls impeccably, or that, inversely, the license lets me even play as some middling low-tier team without making stuff up (hooray, power fantasies of letting Poland finally win the World Cup), but the gaming outlets are more than capable of slamming down markedly different games within the same series for lacking change (this happened to Hitman, Tomb Raider and PoP, for instance), and in case of sports games, most people will see the graphical and squad update. The real competition in this genre is if you compare FIFA to, say, Pro Evolution Soccer.

[Erloas]

What I meant is that I've been playing them since then. I've played versions on just about every system. I wasn't trying to say how much better Madden 2018 is compared to your football game of choice on the NES is, but that Madden 2018 will have a number of improvements over Madden 2017 that you won't notice or appreciate unless you've been playing the games and know the game they are based on. Although I couldn't actually tell you which was the last version I've actually played. But the improvements to the system are at least as substantial as the improvements I've seen in other genres.

[Cheesegear]

What I meant is that I've been playing them since then. I've played versions on just about every system. I wasn't trying to say how much better Madden 2018 is compared to your football game of choice on the NES is, but that Madden 2018 will have a number of improvements over Madden 2017 that you won't notice or appreciate unless you've been playing the games and know the game they are based on. Although I couldn't actually tell you which was the last version I've actually played. But the improvements to the system are at least as substantial as the improvements I've seen in other genres.

Then again, ask an FPS player if Doom (1993) and Doom (2016) are the same game. Are they both First-Person Shooters? Don't both shoot guns? How is Half-Life different to Crysis?

Ask literally any online FPS shooter which game is their favourite; Call of Duty or Battlefield? Not only will they be able to pick the better franchise, they'll be able to pick their favourite individual game and which, specific, developer churned out the best ones on a consistent basis. Because they're not the same. But the only way you could ever possibly know the difference is if you actually played them.

The only reason (IMO) RPGs get a pass on doing exactly the same thing is because they have story. Far Cry 3 is (in)famously 'Skyrim with guns'. But it gets a pass for being the same as another game...Because reasons.

I've lost count of the number of Prototype clones.
I've lost count of the number of Thief: The Dark Project clones.
Isn't Darksiders just Ocarina of Time? No! And how dare you suggest such a thing!

But RPGs get a pass on copying gameplay, because they have 'Story'.

Sports Games (and to a lesser extent, Shooters) are all the same because they have no story.
RPGs are all the same because they have no (unique) gameplay.
...Both sides hate the other. Not least because neither is willing to pick up the others' games.

[Rynjin]

The problem re: sameness in games isn't in genre, it's just a franchise thing.

Sure, every new game in a franchise will make some small changes, but significant ones are hella rare, to the point that unless you're a diehard fan of the series, it's best to only play every third or fourth game.

The same is as true for sports games as it is for Ubisoft games, or Pokemon, or Call of Duty, or any other long running franchise.

RPGs don't get a "pass" on that just because they have a story, though given many RPGs are played entirely for the story (since gameplay is often lackluster in many regardless) it does make similarities to previous games easier to overlook.

The other, perhaps more significant difference though, is turn around speed. Every other franchise type I mentioned is on a yearly release cycle. RPGs have a much longer development cycle.

That means it takes a few more iterations for people to get tired of the same **** over and over since you have long breaks between the games. In the same five year span you might play five Assassin's Creeds, but you'd only have played two Final Fantasy games, as an example.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Then again, ask an FPS player if Doom (1993) and Doom (2016) are the same game. Are they both First-Person Shooters? Don't both shoot guns? How is Half-Life different to Crysis?

Ask literally any online FPS shooter which game is their favourite; Call of Duty or Battlefield? Not only will they be able to pick the better franchise, they'll be able to pick their favourite individual game and which, specific, developer churned out the best ones on a consistent basis. Because they're not the same. But the only way you could ever possibly know the difference is if you actually played them.

The only reason (IMO) RPGs get a pass on doing exactly the same thing is because they have story. Far Cry 3 is (in)famously 'Skyrim with guns'. But it gets a pass for being the same as another game...Because reasons.

I've lost count of the number of Prototype clones.
I've lost count of the number of Thief: The Dark Project clones.
Isn't Darksiders just Ocarina of Time? No! And how dare you suggest such a thing!

But RPGs get a pass on copying gameplay, because they have 'Story'.

Sports Games (and to a lesser extent, Shooters) are all the same because they have no story.
RPGs are all the same because they have no (unique) gameplay.
...Both sides hate the other. Not least because neither is willing to pick up the others' games.

I think you are falling into precisely the fallacy you are position of criticizing a genre without playing it, or you have a VERY different definition of 'RPG' from me.

An RPG is, literally, a story that you get to play a role in. That's kinda why the genre is called 'Role Playing Game'. The story is not only important, it is *THE* core component. The mechanics and the nuts and bolts of the game are secondary in importance. An RPG without a story is analogous to an FPS without guns or a Madden game without Football. It just doesn't work.

If you don't care about story, then RPG genre is probably not your cuppa, and I'm entirely unsurprised that you are happy that it is moving away from it. And I acknowledge your right to that opinion. However, your dislike of story in your games in no way changes the fact that the RPG genre is and has always been story-focused, with the story as a core and critical component of the game.

Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 had absolutely horrid mechanics, and were anything BUT shooters. But they had a story. One that was silly at times, and didn't take itself seriously, but it shot the gap and hit the 'cute and endearing' vibe, much like Dr. Who or Classic Trek or similar 'campy but endearing' stories. Fallout 3's writing, by comparison, fell flat. They tried to chew the scenery, and ended up just being annoying. Fallout: New Vegas's story hit that 'occasionally corny and campy, but enjoyable' vibe that Fallout 1 and 2 hit for many people. Fallout 4... was written with a thousand monkeys and a thousand keyboards without giving them the time to iterate out, by sheer randomness, something relevant. And so instead they just started throwing poo, which is what we ended up with.

The Fallout genre has been trending away from RPG elements and trending to FPS elements since Bethesda took over. If you prefer FPS games to RPG games, then I'm not surprised you are pleased by this, especially as they are polishing their shooting mechanics as they do so, to make it even more attractive to you. Those of us who prefer story, however, are understandably upset.

It's not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of preference. Bethesda is changing their target audience for their product to one with a broader market. That's their decision to make. But to say that bad writing doesn't matter in an RPG, where the writing IS the core fundamental genre identifier... is simply silly. It would be just as silly as saying "Oh yea, this shooter's guns don't work very well. You can aim right at a target, and have the round go somewhere completely random. You can have an unarmored person eat up a whole box of .50 BMG rounds from a Ma Duce and not die. The movement is unresponsive and counterintuitive, and aiming is worse. But I'm not going to let bad mechanics get in the way of enjoying this FPS".

[Cheesegear]

An RPG is, literally, a story that you get to play a role in. That's kinda why the genre is called 'Role Playing Game'. The story is not only important, it is *THE* core component. The mechanics and the nuts and bolts of the game are secondary in importance.

And that's where you've lost me. Game play should always be the main focus of a game.
Otherwise you're playing glorified interactive novels.
The game is what takes you through the story.
Without the gameplay, there is no story, because there is no way to progress through the story, if, what you need to progress, is totally ****. Except for interactive novels.

FPS without guns

An FPS without guns is a First Person Slasher. They exist just fine.

If you don't care about story, then RPG genre is probably not your cuppa...

I never said I don't care about story. What I said was that I don't care if the story is bad, if the gameplay makes up for it.
I can play plenty of FPSs and Sports and Racing Games that don't even have a story (not really), because the gameplay is what I signed up for.

and I'm entirely unsurprised that you are happy that it is moving away from it.

No I'm not. I hate base-survival games, and if '76 moves further away from story then it will have neither of what I want.
FO3 had better gameplay, but a worse story (and really, only the main quest was bad).
New Vegas had worse gameplay, but a better story.

Now, if you ask me which is a better game, then I say FO3. Because that's what I prioritise. I feel that even in an RPG, gameplay is still going to drive story (see above). If you believe the opposite, then...Yeah. But, if gameplay is bad...There's no point. I may as well read a book. Or, if I am interested in the story, but not the game, I can just read the wikia. Or watch someone else play it. Due to how the internet works, I'm not actually inconvenienced by a bad game with a good story.

The only way that this is different, is that some people, see psychological reward through RPG escapism. See previously; Why does it matter to you, if your actions in a fictional game have fictional consequences to fictional people? ...Which, at the end of the day, is all scripted by someone else, regardless of the 'ending' you get, it is still an ending you were allowed to get.

I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole of the need for some, of psychological escapism. So, anyone who's reading this. If that's you. That's cool. Play as many RPGs as you want.

However, your dislike of story in your games...

I'll say last time...Not what I said.

The Fallout genre has been trending away from RPG elements and trending to FPS elements since Bethesda took over.

While Sports, Racing and Shooter, and TBS games are slouching towards RPG mechanics/gameplay.

If you prefer FPS games to RPG games

Never said that.

My favourite genre is Turn Based RPGs because that's how Skinner Boxes work (e.g; Level ups, New gear, personal choice in how you build your character...Tangible rewards for playing the game, by playing the game...I understand what EA was going for in their infamous 'Pride and Accomplishment' post. But their execution of it was a disaster).
Which Fallout 1 and 2 was nicely when you put that option on.

Fallout 3 rewarded exploration. It rewarded playing the game on your own.
New Vegas, did not. Despite having a better out-of-game story...The in-game story is confront Lanius or Oliver. The only thing that sets this binary choice apart from all other games, is that is possible to kill both of them. "Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun."

[Rynjin]

FO3 had better gameplay, but a worse story (and really, only the main quest was bad).
New Vegas had worse gameplay, but a better story.

This doesn't even make any ****ing sense. New Vegas used the same engine and primary mechanics as 3, but fixed a lot of the more poorly made parts of the game and added a lot of quality of life improvements (like the Companion Wheel) and expanded build options for characters.

The statement "New Vegas had worse gameplay than Fallout 3" is literally, objectively false.

Fallout 3 rewarded exploration. It rewarded playing the game on your own.
New Vegas, did not.

This also makes me scratch my head. Both games did a pretty good job at this part. New Vegas had a lot of cool stuff and hidden quests to find the same as Fallout 3 did, both on the beaten path and off.

It also rewarded you for staying in one place more than 3 ever did; most of Fallout 3 was "one and done" as far as quests per location that weren't story quests. Where there were multiple questlines to partake in in New Vegas/Freeside itself, FO3's main equivalent (Rivet City) really only had a single one shot quest plus a main quest (with a side of fetch quest and a couple of unmarked whatever "quests" like the one with the church boy).

Regardless, exploring in both games is how you yielded most of the content, though New Vegas does you the courtesy of guiding you to the location of many of the sidequests in tandem with the more branchy main quest.

Despite having a better out-of-game story...The in-game story is confront Lanius or Oliver. The only thing that sets this binary choice apart from all other games, is that is possible to kill both of them. "Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun."

Two choices is still better than one, which is all you get in three. Not counting the multiple choices you can make as to the fates of individual factions beforehand, which was unavailable in 3 at all, with the exception of Tenpenny Tower or just slaughtering them all by hand.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

And that's where you've lost me. Game play should always be the main focus of a game.
Otherwise you're playing glorified interactive novels.
The game is what takes you through the story.
Without the gameplay, there is no story, because there is no way to progress through the story, if, what you need to progress, is totally ****. Except for interactive novels.



An FPS without guns is a First Person Slasher. They exist just fine.



I never said I don't care about story. What I said was that I don't care if the story is bad, if the gameplay makes up for it.
I can play plenty of FPSs and Sports and Racing Games that don't even have a story (not really), because the gameplay is what I signed up for.



No I'm not. I hate base-survival games, and if '76 moves further away from story then it will have neither of what I want.
FO3 had better gameplay, but a worse story (and really, only the main quest was bad).
New Vegas had worse gameplay, but a better story.

Now, if you ask me which is a better game, then I say FO3. Because that's what I prioritise. I feel that even in an RPG, gameplay is still going to drive story (see above). If you believe the opposite, then...Yeah. But, if gameplay is bad...There's no point. I may as well read a book.



I'll say last time...Not what I said.



While Sports, Racing and Shooter, and TBS games are slouching towards RPG mechanics.



Never said that.

My favourite genre is Turn Based Strategy with combined elements of RPGs because that's how Skinner Boxes work (e.g; Level ups, New gear, personal choice in how you build your character...Tangible rewards for playing the game, by playing the game...I understand what EA was going for in their infamous 'Pride and Accomplishment' post. But their execution of it was a disaster).
Which Fallout 1 and 2 was nicely when you put that option on.

Fallout 3 rewarded exploration. It rewarded playing the game on your own.
New Vegas, did not. Despite having a better out-of-game story...The in-game story is confront Lanius or Oliver. The only thing that sets this binary choice apart from all other games, is that is possible to kill both of them. "Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun."

I suppose the only thing I can say at this point is that while I accept and acknowledge your viewpoint, I also disagree with it in the strongest of terms. And since we are on diametrically opposite ends of this particular spectrum, and very firm on the topic, it is highly unlikely that we shall ever come to an agreement. Therefore, I suppose it is best to simply agree to disagree and move on.

Rolling back around to the topic of Fallout 76, we'll find out in a couple of days. It's pretty clear that we've chewed these rumors and leaks down to the bones. Until then, it is pretty pointless to continue debating speculation surrounding unsubstantiated rumor.

Quite frankly, Fallout 4 is too new to try to displace it with another 'main' offering, especially with the Creator's Club being used to try and leech even more money out of it, and naming the game after the vault it allegedly originates in instead of continuing the numbering convention confirms that it is not, at least, a 'usual' Fallout game, whatever that might mean to Bethesda. Which means that, whatever it is, it isn't going to be an AAA Title-esque release, because they don't want it to compete with FO4 while they're still trying to actively milk it. Which means it also isn't going to be a Rust Clone, because that would be at least on the level of an AAA Title.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it will be a large mobile game, much like Fallout Shelter was, only far more fleshed out and developed. I'm not saying it has to be a base management game, it could be a different genre entirely, but I strongly suspect that whatever it is, it will be available on Apple and Android stores as well as PC. I think we're looking at something smaller, an aside, and we won't see another 'big' Fallout release until Bethesda decides that they've made as much money out of FO4 as they can reasonably expect. In fact, I'll bet that they'll be done with announcing Fallout 76 in about ten or fifteen minutes, then go on to their actual reveal, using the hype from Fallout 76 as a red herring to make their actual reveal even more surprising, which may well be an entirely new Intellectual Property Franchise.

[Cheesegear]

New Vegas had a lot of cool stuff and hidden quests to find the same as Fallout 3 did, both on the beaten path and off.

No it didn't. I've already explained this. Almost every location in the game has at least quest marker that directs you to it at some point in the game, or, can be found in and directly around the main quest road. "The biggest problem with exploration in New Vegas is the main road."

It also rewarded you for staying in one place more than 3 ever did

So...Less...Exploration?

most of Fallout 3 was "one and done" as far as quests per location that weren't story quests.

Yep. Fine with me. I go to the place, do a cool quest, and leave. The game doesn't keep forcing me to backtrack to a place I've already been/seen. That's a good thing in a game designed around exploration...Which is where Skyrim absolutely fails.

FO3's main equivalent (Rivet City) really only had a single one shot quest plus a main quest (with a side of fetch quest and a couple of unmarked whatever "quests" like the one with the church boy).

Fine.

Regardless, exploring in both games is how you yielded most of the content, though New Vegas held your hand to the location of many of the sidequests

Which made me feel railroaded. Because going to the location before I had the quest to go there, was a waste. Unless the quest automatically started once you pick up the MacGuffin that the location is built around. However, there are a number of locations where the item/NPC you're looking for doesn't spawn, unless you have the quest.

Two choices is still better than one, which is all you get in three.

But the instant you make the choice, the game is over. So what's the point? Personal gratification that you got to make a choice at all? But if the choice is meaningless, why is making the choice at all relevant?

[Rynjin]

You seem to be under the impression that "exploration" is only measured by how much literal space you travel. That is...not at all the case.

Covering ground =/= exploration, though it can be a means to facilitate it.

There is more to explore and discover in New Vegas and its surrounding areas than the vast majority of 3's map. That it is contained in a smaller physical space is not a downside.

Unless holding forward is particularly engaging to you, what matters is the content found, not distance traveled.

It's part of the reason games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution (which I'm in the process of replaying now), despite sticking you in smaller physical space, still reward your exploration and curiosity more than your average Far Cry title.

Who gives a **** the map is a hundred miles wide if all that's there is repetitive busywork?

I'm not entirely sure what your fixation on the game being over after a choice is made is. Generally, yes, things end when they are over.