Discussion: FO4 is a great game, but a bad RPG

RustyXXL · December 7, 2015

I tried to carry over most of the Posts I felt important for this discussion. So for us, that might be Interested to continue this topic, here is the summary.

On 5.12.2015, 23:48:58, indipuk said:

2 months 2 hours, who cares, nothing will help this shit game

/just finished main quest

On 6.12.2015, 00:16:10, warbaby2 said:

I dunno 'bout that... sure, Bethesda screwed up the "RP" part in this RPG royaly, but the engine is more or less solid.

On 6.12.2015, 00:39:50, RustyXXL said:

Let me just add to that

Never expect any real RPG options anymore in any Tripple-A title. It just would be to expensive.

But apart from that I think FO4 is a really great game. And unusally stable for a bethesda game...sure there are bugs here and there, but I hardly ever had any crashes, I can't remember encountering any quest-breaking bugs etc. Not saying there aren't any, just that I personally didn't encounter any, and that's pretty much a first with any Bethesda games...^^

On 6.12.2015, 02:36:32, Frel said:

Well the witcher 3 is a a AAA and definitely as close to an RPG as you can get. But yeah those become rare occurrences nowadays (people tend to prefer FPS according to big publishers)

On 6.12.2015, 03:15:29, RustyXXL said:

Well, to be honest I only played the first Witcher Title...had big Problems with getting Witcher 2 running smoothly, when I bought it, and for that reason didn't even think about buying Witcher 3. I wasn't that big of a fan of the first one though...can't even really remember why not, it just didn't leave a big impression on me...

On 6.12.2015, 03:47:48, Frel said:

Witcher 2 and 3 are much more polished than the original. And indeed Witcher 2 was a beast to run on any machine back then but witcher 3 is far more reasonnable (still require a good PC though). Combat can be janky and basic atr times but still better than Skyrim *cough*

If you have the opportunity give a try to either 2 or 3 the main difference is that 3 is much more open world and refined but 2 was already very good while kind of linear (but still a lot of grey choices along the story which made it very refreshing back then and still kind of unique on today AAA "you can be good or bad")

8 hours ago, Mars said:

Witcher 1 and Witcher 3 could not be any more different, it's like comparing GTA 1 vs GTA 5. It's a ground breaking game in many facets, from story telling, where the side quests are better then most games main quests, to something as pleasant as having virtually no loading screens in the biggest AAA open world created.

8 hours ago, astor said:

RPG imo, can only be applied very loosely to the Witcher 3. The game is on rails. Every time i tried to go anywhere, i kept hitting the invisible wall; "Only the strongest demons may tread here," or some such RP crap. As long as i stayed on the "rails" i was fine. On top of that, Geralt has all the personality of a stick.

5 hours ago, darthmexican5 said:

i kept hearing this before i played tw3

i still dont understand it...can you explain how he has the personality of a stick? i dont want to debate/argue, i just want to read your opinion, friend

.

5 hours ago, astor said:

His voice is so cliche, imo. He reminds me of those macho actors from the 80's, you know, the ones that never get a scratch, never make a mistake, always know exactly want to do, etc. I hate that kind of thing. I like believable protagonists. Think Bruce Willis in Die Hard vs Steven Seagal in... well anything really.

4 hours ago, Frel said:

Well I compared to witcher 2 not 1. But yeah witcher 3 handle open world and side quest very well (saying it is ground breaking though ... but to each their opinion)

2 hours ago, JerseyWalrus said:

Well Geralt was mutated to not have emotions, but he still feels them, yet can't express them through his voice. He shows no emotions, needing to rely on actions to show them. Plus, he's old. You read so many notes of other Witchers being killed hunting monsters, by bandits or assassinated because they've strayed into politics but it's because Geralt is very experienced, he's very smart, and very quick to act in any situation, that he's still living. You seem him rag on Ciri's footwork in the beginning when her abilities already are very advanced.

2 hours ago, tonicwalter said:

Your definition of RPG is very western, then - eastern RPGs (the "Tales of"-series, Lufia, Final Fantasy, etc) have always been pretty linear. Same with a lot of western counterparts (Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Neverwinter Nights, etc).

I would even argue that it was Bethesda who created one of the first sandbox-y games when Morrowind came out. At least it was the first sandbox for me.

40 minutes ago, tonicmole said:

with Baldur's Gate, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout series to name a few. Fallout 4 is pretty much the natural expansion of that idea. Frankly Bethesda has never attempted to create an RPG, but more of a fantasy simulator.

15 minutes ago, RustyXXL said:

Nope

Let's take for example a look at Ultima Online, released 1997 (Which wasn't the first one either), 5 years before Morrowind. You "levelled" your Character by using your skills, and could decide in which direction you wanted to go, you had the free choice, if you'd specialize in magic, weapons, stealth and thievery (Yes you could steal as a player from other players legitematly via game mechanics), or even Carpentry, Blacksmithy or tailoring. Or you could tame all kinds of creatures, like ie. nightmares, drakes and dragons.

It had special roleplaying events, where real gamemasters would act out different events etc, which were pretty rare though, and I personally managed only to participate in one of them, and you were absolutely free in what to do in the game. It had its own weaknesses, but as a true rpg it was very, very freeform, more so than many of the later games, and I still miss it sometimes.

There are different definitions of RPGs around. What we are talking about, and what a lot of nowaday gamers don't get to know anymore, is the kind of RPGs that stem from the freeform Pen & Paper Origins, where the "Rules" were only good for laying a groundwork, to have your own Adventure and make your own decisions.

I was a P&P Gamemaster myself for a time, and I used to use as little prewritten Story as possible. I made the most of the Adventures we had up on the go, depending on the actions of my Group. Including making up whole Dungeons-Tours on the go, where I split up the group and they suddenly had to rescue some of their adventuring group, because one of them had done something stupid.

This just to illustrate the spirit of Roleplaying we are talking about. Not where you have to play a role you were given by the gamemaster, but where you can play the role you'd like to play.

In one of my P&P Groups I even used to play a Chaotic/Evil Character, who's aim was to destroy the world. In later play he managed to start a whole new war, and lead the attack, while others in our group lead the other side of the war...The gamemaster practically hadn't to do anything anymore, but we rarely had more fun than right there...^^

*sigh* the good old times ^^

Cherubina · December 7, 2015

I don't like how linear the story is.

Yes you can destroy whoever you want but you can't save anyone.

That little 60 years old brat tells you to do his bidding and you just do it ... that's just downright annoying.
I could imagine 1956105 ways of convincing them otherwise.

In other situations that don't matter you can totally convince other people to drop their weapon or stop fighting ...

RustyXXL · December 7, 2015

tonicwalter wrote:

I wasn't aware Ultima Online had that much of a character creation process. Back in the day, I played Tibia, another 1997 MMORPG - which was also pretty sandbox-y.
The difference is - as it has the MMO aspect, the gameplay differs greatly from "classic" RPG titles - and the story depth usually also is somewhat lacking.

That's why I'm saying Morrowind was one of the earliest "real" sandbox RPGs - because there was not only a very elaborate character creation process, but also hundreds (slight exaggeration) of questlines with deep story, notable characters and interdependance.

Your anecdote concerning P&P-RPGs is appreciated, but doesn't really undermine my base argument - the fact that most people's definition of RPG comes from being culturally socialized by a western environment - and that even in the western hemisphere, there are a lot of works of the genre RPG with pre-designed main characters and a linear storyline.
That doesn't make them less of an RPG, it's just not the sandbox-y approach.

Well, you could argue though, that Quests are exactly one of the problems when it comes to sandbox freeform RPG, as a Quest in a computer RPG has to be written before the player can use it. So it will always limit the freedom of the player in a certain way. You simply can't write a quest and anticipate every possible action, the player might, or might not take. Voiced Actors was another of the points that further limited the freedom part, as you currently need a real actor prerecording all dialogue.

I'm not saying that having Quests is a bad thing. I do enjoy questing, I'm saying that quests in a Computer-Game always impose limits, and in the case of FO4 almost all of the Quests limit you to be the good guy.

And in that sense morrowind (as great as a game it was) was not the beginning of freeform sandbox rpg, it was in a sense the beginning of the downfall of Freeform Sandbox RPG. And I'm not even blaming Bethesda or anybody else for that, It was kind of a "natural development" and was bound to happen. In fact this was one of the topics heavily discussed when the first voice acted rpgs came out.

I also didn't want to disprove anything you wrote, I wanted to illustrate that there are more definitions of RPG than just JRPG, Western RPG and Sandbox RPG, and for some RP means more than "Play the role the gamemaster (=Developer) gives you".

In that sense Fallout 4 is a further Step down. Previous Bethesda games allowed me more freedom in my character, even without mods. Still FO4 is a great game, but for me personally it became hard to use the RP part in this game, as you are stuck to be the good guy. Sure there are some things more in the grey spectrum here and there, but still...Then again, as someone who's been a gamer for well over 20 years, that's nothing that surprised me, as this is a development that has been going on for a long, long time.

AsariX · December 7, 2015

It's one of the things modders can hopefully improve overtime. But, unless Bethesda significantly improves the creation kit, the modded RP improvements that are really interesting (and I don't just mean adult stuff) will require script extenders and thus be nearly exclusive to PC.

Just as an example: did you notice how few named NPC there actually are in Fallout 4? By far, most NPCs are generic: settler, provisioner, drifter, raider, gunner, etcetera.

I hope that, in time, we'll see mods that add some dialogue option to introduce yourself to the generic NPCs, and in turn have those generic NPCs introduce themselves to the player and become (randomly generated? player-decided?) named NPCs in the process. And yes, randomly generated names should be very possible, there's already a namelist hidden in the gamefiles for Cogsworth. Yes, I know some are more suitable as first names while others are more suitable as last names, though many first names do exist as last name, so it wouldn't be totally weird if there were reversed variations.

Next, with NPCs being named, it should be possible to introduce some kind of "radiant quests" from them, missions that are occasionally randomly generated, to be done at random locations.

So, you'd get more named NPCs and generic missions. Sounds like an improvement to me?

December 7, 2015

Sadly generic NPCs is much more common in Fallout. This practice has been annoying for a long time since Fallout 3. Even New Vegas had it. And what makes it worse is that these generic NPCs tend to have the same dialogu and no real emotions. Just dull walking AIs in each settlement.

I don't continue to play their games for any form of RPG, I continue to play their games because I can mod them. That is the only reason why I have had some form of tolerance with their games. If their games didn't provide the toolkit to use to mod, I doubt most pc gamers would have continued to support their games. Only a small group would unconditionally support their mediocre products.

I really don't consider Skyrim to be an RPG. It's missing far too many elements like consequences and choices when it comes to joining a guild. You can be good and evil at the same time and for the most part it has no impact on your reputation towards other NPCs or other guilds. That was a major turn off when I got into Skyrim and realized that.

And while people may say "you don't have to do it if you don't want to". Yeah, well if I join the Companions and go to Riften, I'm forced to start the thieves guild quest. And even if I refuse to help Brynjolf, he'll still be standing there waiting for me to tell him I'm ready. And I'm the type that likes to do every single quest in the game, so long as it's available. If it's not because of limitations due to reputation from say joining Companions being an honorable hero. I can accept that Dark Brotherhood and Thieves Guild will turn me down and never want to talk to me, or even the College of Winterhold, which clearly was another turn off. Lets except even the most brutal barbaric warrior to be a scholar and learn the art of magic.

You have choices, but your choices are not limited, which they should be so that you can encompass what type of player you be so that the path you choose has consequences throughout the game world.

Mods are what keep these games alive for me. But if I want to play an RPG, I won't hold any expectations for Bethesda. I'll turn and look some where else.

NickNozownik · December 7, 2015

This applies to both TES and new Fallout games. Killing and exploring isn't bad, but the RPG part is really poor. FO4 is a disaster, I won't buy it unless there will be some really amazing mods that greatly improve the role playing part. If I'll want some fun and loud mindless dakka then I'll play heavily modded FNV.

Silvist · December 7, 2015

Yeah, you hit it on the head Rusty. I'm a GM myself (hence my title of grand master...also a joke with my pen name), most RPG's are derived from the good ole P&P and go as far back as black and green screen computers.

I don't recall much from the black and green days, except most RPG's seemed to be more like puzzle games. The first actual RPG I really got into on a PC was Eye of Beholder (which ended up being a series). That was pretty much based on 2nd edition D&D. You had the standard character creation of rolling dice, and choosing your race/class/etc. Then your appearance was simply based on some avatar you choose.

Most of those games were the most basic hackin/slash, where you click your abilities. You had some basic riddles, and a pretty basic map grid that you could explore. The biggest and most difficult part of the game was figuring out most of the riddles/puzzles without being really able to interact with the environment.

Though, you're correct in stating that until games like Morrowind....freedom of choice was very limited. Casting spells in armor was a big no no.

The most hilarious part of P&P is that if you really wanted to be hardcore about it, if your character was as dumb as a rock..you sure as hell better play like he's dumb as a rock. Though, when you look more at comparing role playing to say real life...very rarely is one person just focused in just one category. Sure, they might be specialized in one field; but that isn't the entirety of all they know.

Honestly, most RPG's now remind me of a book series called "Choose your own adventure". They used to be entertaining to read for a short period of time, though despite how non linear they felt..they were more like pseudo linear. Meaning you had a set number of choices, but still had the ability to choose between them.

This is typically how most RPG's have been for a long time, where they give you a set amount of alternate paths. The ones at least that try to steer away from a linear style.

The biggest achievement that I've seen in RPG's outside of the pure story, characters, and concepts. Is the open world experience. Sadly there's still invisible boundaries when you go far enough. But that's a huge leap from being forced to walk down a specific path, and take a left at the sign post to reach the next town.

Now you can at least come barreling into a town out of the wilderness, with monsters hot on your trail.

The real main thing we see typically in most RPG's is the "role" concept. Meaning; you put on a "role" and go out and play it out accordingly. They give you some options between what your role can and can't do (such as join the raiders, yes you can pretend...), and give some basic variety to your personality.

I didn't until my friend pointed it out, I didnt even realize that the male character in FO4 is supposed to be a veteran soldier, and the woman is supposed to be an Engineer. Yet, my female character started off with a 1 intelligence 9 str 9 end 9 agi. Then went around meleeing everything to death like she was a pro assassin.

Another thing I've noticed about current RPG's is the control system. The freedom of movement is another thing I enjoy to the utmost degree. Being locked to a turn by turn combat compared to real time, is a breath of fresh air. I'll never forget the most hilarious joke of P&P mechanics switched over to a game mechanics. Which was "attacks of opportunity". P&P at least has an explanation of time, and how much time each action takes.

Where as seeing "attacks of opportunity" in an actual game, looked as if the enemy defied time itself. I'm still amazed in fact it was used recently in Pillars of Eternity; thankfully IE mod fixed that joke immediately. If I want an enemy AI to respond to my movement, I prefer for him to do it in a matter that seems as real as possible lol.

So you guys are wondering why the hell I brought up all those points in regards to Fallout 4. Well, most of what I touched on above is some of the things I really enjoy about the game. The part about the character's role, not so much. Though, with an alternate start like Skyrim we can probably fix it.

rtrd · December 8, 2015

Agree fully. I've played through the main story, with what I think can be the most common one: Minutemen and then the brotherhood. The brotherhood story line is meh, and the minutemen and Preston fucking Garvey is just pure awful grinding crap. Minutemen are AIDS and I hope there come a well done quest mod where the plot line is to eradicate the minutemen just because they are stuck up, high horsed assholes. The last boss is Preston fucking Garvey where the moder have included some torture element or really evil choice in the end.

It's not until I've actively searched the internet for good quests I've found something remotely interesting story wise, and it's been one or two good once, like the pirate ship was good in thought but lacked a little in execution, and the best one so far for me is the one with the ageless family and the ancient crown - in that one you can do some choices that feel evil, which takes me to the next point:

YOU CAN'T BE EVIL! You can be sarcastic, that's about it. I want to be able to be evil. I wan't that feeling "holy shit what did I do, that was so evil!" (KotOR2 was good at that). Sure I can kill a lot of the characters and everyone starts shooting at me and the mission is failed, whopdido. There need to be more sinister choices, manus written evil chices. Also, when I say, everyone starts shooting...I can't even kill someone in my own settlement without the whole settlement start shooting at me, a settlement that I've created, I've built everything in, and I am the total boss in, it should just ignite fear, not instant revolution like they've just waited for a chance to murder me. And when I say "almost everyone" I need to download a damn mod to be able to kill children - they had even blocked the possibility to send away the kids from a settlement to another settlement... Let Me Be Evil - what's the point of an open world fictional thing if I have to behave like I would in real life?

"We've created an awesome game, think nuclear war post apocalypse, robots, mutants, laser weapons, a world free to roam in. Here you can act as a rational and emphatic human being, OR as a rational, emphatic and sarcastic human being! Oh the choices!

Lastly the characters. Empty shells that I don't care about. I never played a RPG where I fast click through the dialogue as much as this game. "I don't care". It seems like they even know it themselves, as there's often the dialog choice "Get to the point". I liked Codsworth a short while, but he was a moralistic bastard when I did bad stuff even though he is a damn household robot, and the only character I've really liked so far is Curie and the guy with the egyptian crown. No HK-47 so been seen as far as the horizon goes...

(first post full of hate but I had another account on oldnew LL that seems to not work now, and also, the game has a lot of other things to offer - thanks to the moddability)

*sen4mi* · December 9, 2015

Role playing, I think, is something the player brings to the game?

I think its an ability in itself, and not something which can be shrink wrapped.

AsariX · December 9, 2015

Role playing, I think, is something the player brings to the game?

I think its an ability in itself, and not something which can be shrink wrapped.

Very true, but you don't want to give me a penny for everybody who thinks RPG is only a matter of stats, skillpoints and abilities, but doesn't understand that those only make the framework around the RPG.

That said, Fallout 4 does rather lack around the roleplaying component. It isn't much of a "your story", it's more of a "here you have a bunch of story components, take whatever parts you like, shuffle them around in whatever order you like, as long as you solve them in the exact manner we want you to solve them". But then, that's a problem of about every computergame. Even the older Bethesda and Bioware games suffered this, although their older games did attempt to allow for way more avenues to fulfil your main mission.

Aria · December 9, 2015

Role playing, I think, is something the player brings to the game?

I think its an ability in itself, and not something which can be shrink wrapped.

Not necessarily, it also depends on the game, if you are being directed towards a certain path without having the possiblity to choose differently then all you can do is to pretend to be roleplaying.

If a quest is accepted despite you choosing the "No" option, wich was also the case of skyrims thiefs guild and other quests, then you can hardly roleplay, only pretend.

This linear quest design IMO kills the whole open world experience when it comes to questing, being a part of the world and discovering, because you cannot choose your own path, no matter how many new characters you going to make you will be always hammered into the same path and that also kills the replay value of the game.

That being said, in FO4 from what i read, you can only join one faction, in contrast to skyrim's where you could have been a master of all guilds, wich was ridiculous, its atleast some form of choosing.

nutluck · December 9, 2015

RPG's are not what Beth is good at, they are good at make sandbox mod friendly games where you can do your own thing. I wish they would just admit it and focus just on that and stop wasting their time trying to tell fairly terrible main stories.

Baine · December 9, 2015

Not necessarily, it also depends on the game, if you are being directed towards a certain path without having the possiblity to choose differently then all you can do is to pretend to be roleplaying.

If a quest is accepted despite you choosing the "No" option, wich was also the case of skyrims thiefs guild and other quests, then you can hardly roleplay, only pretend.

This linear quest design IMO kills the whole open world experience when it comes to questing, being a part of the world and discovering, because you cannot choose your own path, no matter how many new characters you going to make you will be always hammered into the same path and that also kills the replay value of the game.

That being said, in FO4 from what i read, you can only join one faction, in contrast to skyrim's where you could have been a master of all guilds, wich was ridiculous, its atleast some form of choosing.

I haven't played every new RPG that comes out (really need to play WItcher at some point), but pretty much all the RPG's I've played are this. You are guided along a path to its conclusion. Sometimes you can make some different choices, but the end result happens. Bethesda differs in the sense that you can flip the main quest the double deuce and spend days building a perfect settlement and becoming a trader.

I will agree that I find it annoying that I cannot turn down a damn quest in a Bethesda game - you could at least say no to random quests in BioWare games - but in those, you're still locked into the main quest to the conclusion. Just like Bethesda.

I don't think it kills replayability, because that's ultimately up to you. Even if the game has more options, it will always be finite. It's already been mentioned that in any game that isn't powered by your own imagination, there are limits. I would be first in line in Calvinball ever manages to become a real video game. You can choose your own path, but there are only so many paths you can take to play the game.

I think Bethesda has always been weak on role playing in the game. For the games I play, I give characters stories, motivations, backgrounds, etc.. I try to tie it to the game, but in some ways, the lack of programmed RP leaves more up for me to decide, and I like that. Granted, it doesn't have a visual/audio interpretation, but the game is also single player, so imagination always kicks in when I need it.

*sen4mi* · December 9, 2015

Role playing, I think, is something the player brings to the game?

I think its an ability in itself, and not something which can be shrink wrapped.

Not necessarily, it also depends on the game, if you are being directed towards a certain path without having the possiblity to choose differently then all you can do is to pretend to be roleplaying.

If a quest is accepted despite you choosing the "No" option, wich was also the case of skyrims thiefs guild and other quests, then you can hardly roleplay, only pretend.

This linear quest design IMO kills the whole open world experience when it comes to questing, being a part of the world and discovering, because you cannot choose your own path, no matter how many new characters you going to make you will be always hammered into the same path and that also kills the replay value of the game.

That being said, in FO4 from what i read, you can only join one faction, in contrast to skyrim's where you could have been a master of all guilds, wich was ridiculous, its atleast some form of choosing.

But... I routinely ignore - or perhaps deliberately fail - quests I do not like?

And, I am on my second character now, in fallout 4, and I have yet to visit diamond city, have claimed something like a dozen settlements, am near level 40, and generally have avoided quite a bit of the experiences my first character went through and have mostly been working with a different group of companions.

Of course the locations will still be the same locations, and it's still a game involving fighting, scavenging and building. and so on. Some things do not change.

But also... you said: "from what you read"...? This makes me wonder if you even played the game? Are you specifically objecting to the game start? I can totally agree that if you just keep playing the game start that it feels like there's not much to the game.

(Or... the way factions seem to me: ...for the stuff about the factions I think you are talking about... there are four of them, and you have to be making choices which antagonize some of them to "complete" the game's sad story involving your family, but you do not have to antagonize all four of them, and you can perhaps maintain good relations with two of them, but the decisions you need to make are not "mathematically pure", either). Actually, it seems like you can be friendly, hostile or "neither" with factions...)

Aria · December 10, 2015

Not necessarily, it also depends on the game, if you are being directed towards a certain path without having the possiblity to choose differently then all you can do is to pretend to be roleplaying.

If a quest is accepted despite you choosing the "No" option, wich was also the case of skyrims thiefs guild and other quests, then you can hardly roleplay, only pretend.

This linear quest design IMO kills the whole open world experience when it comes to questing, being a part of the world and discovering, because you cannot choose your own path, no matter how many new characters you going to make you will be always hammered into the same path and that also kills the replay value of the game.

That being said, in FO4 from what i read, you can only join one faction, in contrast to skyrim's where you could have been a master of all guilds, wich was ridiculous, its atleast some form of choosing.

I haven't played every new RPG that comes out (really need to play WItcher at some point), but pretty much all the RPG's I've played are this. You are guided along a path to its conclusion. Sometimes you can make some different choices, but the end result happens. Bethesda differs in the sense that you can flip the main quest the double deuce and spend days building a perfect settlement and becoming a trader.

I will agree that I find it annoying that I cannot turn down a damn quest in a Bethesda game - you could at least say no to random quests in BioWare games - but in those, you're still locked into the main quest to the conclusion. Just like Bethesda.

I don't think it kills replayability, because that's ultimately up to you. Even if the game has more options, it will always be finite. It's already been mentioned that in any game that isn't powered by your own imagination, there are limits. I would be first in line in Calvinball ever manages to become a real video game. You can choose your own path, but there are only so many paths you can take to play the game.

I think Bethesda has always been weak on role playing in the game. For the games I play, I give characters stories, motivations, backgrounds, etc.. I try to tie it to the game, but in some ways, the lack of programmed RP leaves more up for me to decide, and I like that. Granted, it doesn't have a visual/audio interpretation, but the game is also single player, so imagination always kicks in when I need it.

I was mostly pointing at the already established background of your FO4 character, in previous games you were a blank page, therefore your immagination could have gone wild, but with the set background all you can do is to pretend having options.

But you are right, even if there are options, most rpgs are similary linear with a few choices branching into different outcomes, the path is set...making thousands of options would be simply impossible and time consuming.

But having atleast the option to turn down a quest or say "im going to do it my way", wich usually translates to guns blazing, persuasion or stealth, gives atleast some form of depth and leaves alot more room for the immagination.

Role playing, I think, is something the player brings to the game?

I think its an ability in itself, and not something which can be shrink wrapped.

Not necessarily, it also depends on the game, if you are being directed towards a certain path without having the possiblity to choose differently then all you can do is to pretend to be roleplaying.

If a quest is accepted despite you choosing the "No" option, wich was also the case of skyrims thiefs guild and other quests, then you can hardly roleplay, only pretend.

This linear quest design IMO kills the whole open world experience when it comes to questing, being a part of the world and discovering, because you cannot choose your own path, no matter how many new characters you going to make you will be always hammered into the same path and that also kills the replay value of the game.

That being said, in FO4 from what i read, you can only join one faction, in contrast to skyrim's where you could have been a master of all guilds, wich was ridiculous, its atleast some form of choosing.

But... I routinely ignore - or perhaps deliberately fail - quests I do not like?

And, I am on my second character now, in fallout 4, and I have yet to visit diamond city, have claimed something like a dozen settlements, am near level 40, and generally have avoided quite a bit of the experiences my first character went through and have mostly been working with a different group of companions.

Of course the locations will still be the same locations, and it's still a game involving fighting, scavenging and building. and so on. Some things do not change.

But also... you said: "from what you read"...? This makes me wonder if you even played the game? Are you specifically objecting to the game start? I can totally agree that if you just keep playing the game start that it feels like there's not much to the game.

(Or... the way factions seem to me: ...for the stuff about the factions I think you are talking about... there are four of them, and you have to be making choices which antagonize some of them to "complete" the game's sad story involving your family, but you do not have to antagonize all four of them, and you can perhaps maintain good relations with two of them, but the decisions you need to make are not "mathematically pure", either). Actually, it seems like you can be friendly, hostile or "neither" with factions...)

If you cannot abandon or turn a quest down then you didnt failed it, its just occupies your quest log, ofcourse you can decide to simply ignore it, but it doesnt change the fact that its still there, not to mention some quests are probably tied together wich means sooner or later you have to do it.

And yes i havent played the game, i simply dont feel like giving money for another shooter, there is tons of them out there and by far better then FO4.

I been watching plenty of vids though and seeing bethesdas track record of "one step forward, several steps back", i can pretty much guess, plus looking at the quest design its skyrim style, just more dumbed down, even the choices that are presented to you lead to the same path, your character says the same stuff just worded differently.

I might pick up the game a few years later if the modding is going to be strong and brings back the rpg part that they like to cut out more and more with each new game.

NoGround · December 10, 2015

Role playing, I think, is something the player brings to the game?

I think its an ability in itself, and not something which can be shrink wrapped.

Not necessarily, it also depends on the game, if you are being directed towards a certain path without having the possiblity to choose differently then all you can do is to pretend to be roleplaying.

If a quest is accepted despite you choosing the "No" option, wich was also the case of skyrims thiefs guild and other quests, then you can hardly roleplay, only pretend.

This linear quest design IMO kills the whole open world experience when it comes to questing, being a part of the world and discovering, because you cannot choose your own path, no matter how many new characters you going to make you will be always hammered into the same path and that also kills the replay value of the game.

That being said, in FO4 from what i read, you can only join one faction, in contrast to skyrim's where you could have been a master of all guilds, wich was ridiculous, its atleast some form of choosing.

There's a catch-22 in your argument. If you're saying that a game loses the RPG element (and is instead just "pretend") by directing you down a certain path, then you need to eliminate many other RPGs from the genre. The most noticeable, glaring elephant in the room would be The Witcher 3. You can't necessarily say that The Witcher 3 isn't an RPG, while at the same time saying that it doesn't direct you down a certain path. Even if you are allowed to make choices to that end, you will still end up at the grand finale of the story, with different results based on choices. Sounds like FO4 to a tee.

Like you said, it depends on the game, but that doesn't remove the RPG elements of the story. The factions themselves are linked directly to the story, unlike Skyrim, and all have politics with each other, unlike Skyrim. You can still choose which faction you join, so yeah, you have a choice. You just can't have it all. By definition, a choice eliminates the possibility of the other option. Having it all is not a choice, it's just absorption of material within the game.

Aria · December 10, 2015

Role playing, I think, is something the player brings to the game?

I think its an ability in itself, and not something which can be shrink wrapped.

Not necessarily, it also depends on the game, if you are being directed towards a certain path without having the possiblity to choose differently then all you can do is to pretend to be roleplaying.

If a quest is accepted despite you choosing the "No" option, wich was also the case of skyrims thiefs guild and other quests, then you can hardly roleplay, only pretend.

This linear quest design IMO kills the whole open world experience when it comes to questing, being a part of the world and discovering, because you cannot choose your own path, no matter how many new characters you going to make you will be always hammered into the same path and that also kills the replay value of the game.

That being said, in FO4 from what i read, you can only join one faction, in contrast to skyrim's where you could have been a master of all guilds, wich was ridiculous, its atleast some form of choosing.

There's a catch-22 in your argument. If you're saying that a game loses the RPG element (and is instead just "pretend") by directing you down a certain path, then you need to eliminate many other RPGs from the genre. The most noticeable, glaring elephant in the room would be The Witcher 3. You can't necessarily say that The Witcher 3 isn't an RPG, while at the same time saying that it doesn't direct you down a certain path. Even if you are allowed to make choices to that end, you will still end up at the grand finale of the story, with different results based on choices. Sounds like FO4 to a tee.

Like you said, it depends on the game, but that doesn't remove the RPG elements of the story. The factions themselves are linked directly to the story, unlike Skyrim, and all have politics with each other, unlike Skyrim. You can still choose which faction you join, so yeah, you have a choice. You just can't have it all. By definition, a choice eliminates the possibility of the other option. Having it all is not a choice, it's just absorption of material within the game.

Rpg and rpg elements are two things though, any game can have rpg elements but that doesnt necessarily make it an rpg, its the choice you are given, while the path is set, you still have a choice wich one you will take and while in witcher you have already a set background you still have the option to choose wich path you going to take.

And thats what i was mostly talking about, either there are options how you going to do a quest or not, in wich case you cannot for example roleplay some vilain that doesnt give 2 shits about helping others and rather pilages their homes, when you cant turn the quest down or take a different approach, since the option isnt present, all you can do is to pretend to be one at best.

Well, thats how i understand it, atleast.

*sen4mi* · December 10, 2015

If you cannot abandon or turn a quest down then you didnt failed it, its just occupies your quest log, ofcourse you can decide to simply ignore it, but it doesnt change the fact that its still there, not to mention some quests are probably tied together wich means sooner or later you have to do it.

You can de-select quests in your log, and generally speaking you have to make choices between quests.

Also completing some quests will cause certain others to fail.

But, even without that, Fallout 4 was designed to be modable. And the modding system allows modders to make quests fail. So creating a mod to allow you to fail quests would be well within reason.

But somehow I feel that this was never your real issue.

RustyXXL · December 10, 2015

Let me take the Thicket Excavation as an Example. It's a place you usually get to very early, and was the first time I really noticed the lack of options.

Additionally I keep the spoilers to a minimum. I could pull out a lot more examples, as it goes pretty much through all the game, but lets just take this one.

Basically you get there, there's this guy Sully, who wants to get rid of the water in the quarry.

If you look around a bit, before helping him, you can find his Journal, which indicates, that his targets are trade-caravans, and indicates strongly

that he might have ill intentions.

You as a player now have only the choice of helping him or simply ignoring the quest.

So either playing the naive dumb farmboy who can't imagine any ill intends (despite being a War Veteran/Lawyer) or someone who doesn't give a crap.

How about saying for example extorting him for a cut. Or let me say to him, if I found the Journal "Hey, I know what you are up to,

and I won't let that happen (and thus preventing the quarry from getting pumped out and being a raider base later in the game).

Maybe even an option of talking him out of it could be imagineable, for a high enough charism char, possibly even turning the quarry in a

possible new settlement site.

But no, you are stuck to do the quest in exactly 1 way. And this is something even earlier Bethesda games were much better at, and what leads me to the

Conclusion I put as the title.

Let me take another example: For me it was quite obvious, that you'd have no concept of time passing in cryogenic sleep. Nonetheless I'm stuck telling

everybody that I'm looking for an infant boy from the beginning, being forrced again to play the slightly naive, dumb farmboy, just so that Bethesda

can force the "big surprising" reveal later in the game on me, where I again have no real choice as to be totally surprised that Shaun is older than

I have to have thought he was.

Again no options for own Character design, and what's even worse, again traits that doesn't really fit my visions of a War Veteran or Lawyer.

Still, I'm not hating on Bethesda or FO4, I still think it's a great game, and I do think despite it's flaws, the Stories in the game are okay, sometimes even

relatively good.

Aluminium · December 10, 2015

Now, in my opinion, F4 is an amazing action-adventure with all the shooting and crafting your heart may desire. However, role playing isn't just something you can bring to any game if the game doesn't provide for it. And F4, you guessed it, does not.

Say, if everything was a capital issue and trying to kill you, it would have been fun without good dialogue and scarce unique characters. Like DUST is fun.

But it ain't like that - survival is never hard, stimpaks and radaway still lie in every restroom, blood packs let you create super-cure-anti-radiation-instant-addiction-remover and are all over the place. You will never be forced to kill a human over a bottle of water - you don't even need water for survival. You don't even feel permanent danger - sure, 90% of the population are raiders, but that only means that their bases have more manpower than Diamond City.

I've noticed TWO instances where I felt my choice mattered - trying to mug Trashcan Karla, who refuses to trade with you if you failed the mugging (and then you find 9001 other traders and learn to create your own), and the Cabot family quest, where you choose between a fun knock-down gun or a life-long supply of the best radiation cure in game (which doesn't matter because Rad-Away is everywhere).

Other than that, if you help Sully Mathis make a raider base, he'll still be hostile (because you don't have a rep and he has no way of knowing that you might just be raider gang material);
if you help the scavengers sabotage the USS Constitution, they'll turn hostile anyway because this game need even more fucking fighting - it's not like you resolve 99% of the quests with it.

All the companions are good-karma, ALL of them, even if some, like Hancock or MacCready, are fairly nuanced (jovial drug-addict and the one guy who approves mindless extortion of caps, respectively). Cait, who at first seemed like a deliciously screwed up and genuinely evil bitch turned out to literally just have daddy issues you can help her with. Since, you know, it ain't like we're in the middle of a total societal disruption and the new dark ages, people can't just be crazy enough to enjoy nothing but drugs, sex and good old ultraviolence - they gotta have some deep underlying issues that have caused that outlook.

Also, her personal quest is just a bloody TON of repetitive CQC.

Settlements are just a huge waste of potential. Compare and contrast This War of Mine: for shits and giggles I started role-playing as a gang of civilians-turned-robbers, which the game doesn't approve but ALLOWS. Hit unprotected shelters, massacre both the military and the rebels, rob an entire hospital... Did your settlers descend into depression? Treat with hooch rather than hugs (which is perfectly viable).

Here, you can't even create a settlement of generic raiders and use it as a base of operations, earning generic loot. Generic goody-two-shoes is all you can ever be and a land owner.

*DocClox* · December 10, 2015

To my mind, it's not so much a question of "is it an RPG?" so much as "what level of support does it have for role-playing".

I mean the people who argue that role-play is something you do have a point. With a bit of work you can construct your own personal narrative around the events in Fallout 4.

I do have a problem with that approach though and that is it applies to pretty much everything. I mean you can construct your own personal motivations for Frodo while reading Lord of the Rings. or for Bruce Willis in Die Hard. to pick a couple of examples at random. All you have to do is use your imagination. But you wouldn't describe LotR as a Role Playing Book, or Die Hard as a Role Playing Film.

The same thing is true with games. I love the Witcher games, but there's not a lot of room for role-play there. Geralt is Geralt. He'll say the sort of things that Geralt always says and do the sort of things that Geralt always does. Your participation in his story is is limited to guiding the skills he improves, and maybe deciding what mood he's in when he talks to someone. It's a step up (in roleplay terms) from going to the pictures, but you're still basically a spectator. There's no element of creativity required of the player; just tactics and strategy.

Thinking about it, I think that creativity is a big part of what makes for an RPG in my mind. The genre of role playing games stems from the late 70s with Gygax and Arneson and the early Dungeons and Dragons rules. In those games, player creativity was central. You built your character, defined their background, motivations and abilities and created them as closely as you could within the limitations of the rules and what the DM would allow. The DM created the world and the scenario for the week's session. The result was a collaboration between the DM and the players, with everyone having an input into the result.

That sense of collaboration, I think, is what's really missing from Fallout 4. I talk to Codsworth about "Baby". "Shaun's been kidnapped" my toon says. Then he adds "... and I;m going to find him!". And I'm thinking, hang on - who gave you a vote? Who's actually designing this character?

And that's my problem throughout. Not only does the detail and heavy emotional content of the backstory make it very difficult to develop a sympathetic character other than "OMG! They took the baby", but every time I try, the game keeps smacking me down and reminding me that it is in charge, not me. It feels like that scene in The Producers: "Silence! You are only the audience! I am the author! I outrank you!"

There are a lot of other factors that work against role-players as well. I know all the dialogue options work out as "yes", "yes", "yes" and "maybe" so I tend to skip to "i'll do it" without reading the text because I know it doesn't make any difference. In F3 I'd leave Dogmeat at home because I don't like him getting killed. In this one I know he's unkillable so I let raiders and deathclaws pound on him while I find a safe place to snipe from. How I treat him makes no difference, and so I don't care what happens to him. Instead of a companion, he becomes a tactical asset. And the pattern keeps on repeating.

Bethesda games had traditionally had excellent support for role players. That just isn't the case with Fallout 4. But at the same time they haven't given us anyone interesting enough that I want to sit back and watch the movie. Honestly, the only reason I'm persevering with this one is that I might still want to mod it someday. As far as role-playing goes, I'd be better off watching a re-run of Die Hard.

Cozza · December 10, 2015

I gotta agree with allot of people here.

FO4 is a really good game. Just not really a fun role playing game.

Which is a shame because there's allot of potential for role playing, instead your kinda railroaded down a specific story line. The potential for a great role playing storyline was there as soon as you left the vault. You had a very specific objective, "Find Shaun". But instead of exploring around and find clues and doing what ever you want to find him. You forced to go see Codsworth, goto concord, etc etc and there's no deviation from that.

saviliana · December 10, 2015

RPG's are not what Beth is good at, they are good at make sandbox mod friendly games where you can do your own thing. I wish they would just admit it and focus just on that and stop wasting their time trying to tell fairly terrible main stories.

Well they didn't stop you to roam free to the map and play everything else other than the main story, didn't they?

Just leave the quest and play it your way, and if that didn't suits your taste, mod it into your way.

nutluck · December 10, 2015

RPG's are not what Beth is good at, they are good at make sandbox mod friendly games where you can do your own thing. I wish they would just admit it and focus just on that and stop wasting their time trying to tell fairly terrible main stories.

Well they didn't stop you to roam free to the map and play everything else other than the main story, didn't they?

Just leave the quest and play it your way, and if that didn't suits your taste, mod it into your way.

Exactly where did I say I couldn't play the game with out doing the main story arc? Oh right I didn't. I said I would rather they not do poor main stories and focus on what they are good at and flesh out other things. Like settlement building is a great idea but it could have used a lot more attention and I would have much rather them have used all the time are resources they wasted on a IMHO lame main story into that.

Aria · December 10, 2015

If you cannot abandon or turn a quest down then you didnt failed it, its just occupies your quest log, ofcourse you can decide to simply ignore it, but it doesnt change the fact that its still there, not to mention some quests are probably tied together wich means sooner or later you have to do it.

You can de-select quests in your log, and generally speaking you have to make choices between quests.

Also completing some quests will cause certain others to fail.

But, even without that, Fallout 4 was designed to be modable. And the modding system allows modders to make quests fail. So creating a mod to allow you to fail quests would be well within reason.

But somehow I feel that this was never your real issue.

Well deselecting doesnt make it dissapear, but i understand that you might not have a problem with it.

Its simply about having options when presented with a quest, even in skyrim there were parts where you were railroaded and didnt had the options to turn them down, you could ignore them but at some point other quests couldnt be completed without going to certain places where you were forced to take another quest, like it was the case of mages guild.

There was a quest that sent you to mages guild and upon arriving, to be able to enter the college you had to take the quest of joining the mages guild, there was no other way as far as i remember.

To my mind, it's not so much a question of "is it an RPG?" so much as "what level of support does it have for role-playing".

I mean the people who argue that role-play is something you do have a point. With a bit of work you can construct your own personal narrative around the events in Fallout 4.

I do have a problem with that approach though and that is it applies to pretty much everything. I mean you can construct your own personal motivations for Frodo while reading Lord of the Rings. or for Bruce Willis in Die Hard. to pick a couple of examples at random. All you have to do is use your imagination. But you wouldn't describe LotR as a Role Playing Book, or Die Hard as a Role Playing Film.

The same thing is true with games. I love the Witcher games, but there's not a lot of room for role-play there. Geralt is Geralt. He'll say the sort of things that Geralt always says and do the sort of things that Geralt always does. Your participation in his story is is limited to guiding the skills he improves, and maybe deciding what mood he's in when he talks to someone. It's a step up (in roleplay terms) from going to the pictures, but you're still basically a spectator. There's no element of creativity required of the player; just tactics and strategy.

Thinking about it, I think that creativity is a big part of what makes for an RPG in my mind. The genre of role playing games stems from the late 70s with Gygax and Arneson and the early Dungeons and Dragons rules. In those games, player creativity was central. You built your character, defined their background, motivations and abilities and created them as closely as you could within the limitations of the rules and what the DM would allow. The DM created the world and the scenario for the week's session. The result was a collaboration between the DM and the players, with everyone having an input into the result.

That sense of collaboration, I think, is what's really missing from Fallout 4. I talk to Codsworth about "Baby". "Shaun's been kidnapped" my toon says. Then he adds "... and I;m going to find him!". And I'm thinking, hang on - who gave you a vote? Who's actually designing this character?

And that's my problem throughout. Not only does the detail and heavy emotional content of the backstory make it very difficult to develop a sympathetic character other than "OMG! They took the baby", but every time I try, the game keeps smacking me down and reminding me that it is in charge, not me. It feels like that scene in The Producers: "Silence! You are only the audience! I am the author! I outrank you!"

There are a lot of other factors that work against role-players as well. I know all the dialogue options work out as "yes", "yes", "yes" and "maybe" so I tend to skip to "i'll do it" without reading the text because I know it doesn't make any difference. In F3 I'd leave Dogmeat at home because I don't like him getting killed. In this one I know he's unkillable so I let raiders and deathclaws pound on him while I find a safe place to snipe from. How I treat him makes no difference, and so I don't care what happens to him. Instead of a companion, he becomes a tactical asset. And the pattern keeps on repeating.

Bethesda games had traditionally had excellent support for role players. That just isn't the case with Fallout 4. But at the same time they haven't given us anyone interesting enough that I want to sit back and watch the movie. Honestly, the only reason I'm persevering with this one is that I might still want to mod it someday. As far as role-playing goes, I'd be better off watching a re-run of Die Hard.

Im not saying you cant immagine your own background in FO4 despite it being set, but if we were to apply this logic to basicaly any game out there, every one of them would be rpgs.

I can play a pure shallow shooter and immagine im someone else, but immagining and having and option are two things, IMO an Rpg should be presented with an option as a core for establishing your own background and the actions you take, it doesnt have to be necessarily a deep one, but to feel as a part of the world where you roleplay someone it can make a difference, where in contrast with no options you can only immagine being someone, pretend.

Even binary options as being good or evil, can become core parts for establishing your character into a certain role that you can boost with your immagination.

Though i agree with pretty much everything you said.

Sign In

Discussion: FO4 is a great game, but a bad RPG

Recommended Posts

Guest endgameaddiction

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members