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

[DocClox]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that thinking of games as RPG or non-RPG isn't being very productive. One poster writes "F4 is not an RPG"; another writes "it is too an RPG" and then the idea that role-play is something that happens in the player's mind comes up, and it's very hard to argue against that. Mainly because it's true.

 

So I'm thinking, perhaps we could better frame the argument in terms of how easy it is to RP in a particular game. I mean in Morrowind you can't do anything but RP because you get a completely blank slate. In Mass Effect you can choose to be rude or polite, but otherwise you're always Shepard. Some games have good support of role-playing, others try and tie you down to a single character.

 

In Fallout 3 I never had any problem roleplaying. In F4 I find it almost impossible because it offers very little support for roleplayers.

 

Which is a pity really, since roleplayers have been a big part of Beth's core audience since forever.

[Nasseliten]

After reading all this, I think I won't like FO4.

 

making it into an action /adventure ish game.   ufffff.........

 

Thats not what fallout was about for me.

[Aria]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that thinking of games as RPG or non-RPG isn't being very productive. One poster writes "F4 is not an RPG"; another writes "it is too an RPG" and then the idea that role-play is something that happens in the player's mind comes up, and it's very hard to argue against that. Mainly because it's true.

 

So I'm thinking, perhaps we could better frame the argument in terms of how easy it is to RP in a particular game. I mean in Morrowind you can't do anything but RP because you get a completely blank slate. In Mass Effect you can choose to be rude or polite, but otherwise you're always Shepard. Some games have good support of role-playing, others try and tie you down to a single character.

 

In Fallout 3 I never had any problem roleplaying. In F4 I find it almost impossible because it offers very little support for roleplayers.

 

Which is a pity really, since roleplayers have been a big part of Beth's core audience since forever.

Yeah i suppose we could boil this down to simply, either the game supports roleplaying or not, though that creates more questions as to why some games are being labeled as rpgs and others not, while other games just pretend to be rpgs, it makes the whole rpg thing  questionable.

In the end i guess its more or less a subjective thing.

[Sicon3]

Personally i strongly agree with the header for this topic but i do have something to say.

 

I love fallout 4 as a game. Simply put it is a very fun game to play. the combat is good the graphics are tolerable the crafting is the shit and for some of the characters at least the writing is sold AF (Cate Piper etc). However it's playtime will not come close to my 1000 hours in Skyrim. i think once i beat the game (currently enjoying side quests) i will set it aside for a year or two waiting for the in depth modding to be complete. well actually ill play DLC but thats not the point.

 

Fallout 4 is a shitty RPG but to be honest fallout 3 was only somewhat better. Fallout New Vegas now that game had a lot of old school RPG in its blood and thats what kept it repayable. Thant and some of the best DLC in gaming.

 

One thing i also want to say is that despite fallout 4 being a bad RPG game i have no real concerns over TES VI being the same way. TES games have always been better RPGs and the Fantasy RPG genre is very very sell-able. i think bethesda went the direction they did with Fallout 4 to reach a larger audience but TES will always be their lovechild so i feel confident its future is safe.

[sen4mi]

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!"

 

And, there, I am imagining that modding will be the answer - though perhaps not a satisfying answer? I get rather lazy about modding after I have installed a mod that crashes my game when I cannot easily tell which mod was doing that.

 

But I am also interested in ideas about what could have been done to increase role playing in this particular game.

 

(It's so trivially easy to be dissatisfied, but coming up with improvements that work well for lots of people can be daunting.)

[mellowtraumatic]

I try not to waste my time worrying too much about what a game isn't and just try to enjoy it for what it is and for the most part, I've enjoyed Fallout 4 a lot, despite its obvious issues and quirks. I deal with the main story when I want to and when I don't, I don't even think about it. 

[RustyXXL]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that thinking of games as RPG or non-RPG isn't being very productive. One poster writes "F4 is not an RPG"; another writes "it is too an RPG" and then the idea that role-play is something that happens in the player's mind comes up, and it's very hard to argue against that. Mainly because it's true.

 

So I'm thinking, perhaps we could better frame the argument in terms of how easy it is to RP in a particular game. I mean in Morrowind you can't do anything but RP because you get a completely blank slate. In Mass Effect you can choose to be rude or polite, but otherwise you're always Shepard. Some games have good support of role-playing, others try and tie you down to a single character.

 

In Fallout 3 I never had any problem roleplaying. In F4 I find it almost impossible because it offers very little support for roleplayers.

 

Which is a pity really, since roleplayers have been a big part of Beth's core audience since forever.

 

Yeah i suppose we could boil this down to simply, either the game supports roleplaying or not, though that creates more questions as to why some games are being labeled as rpgs and others not, while other games just pretend to be rpgs, it makes the whole rpg thing  questionable.

In the end i guess its more or less a subjective thing.

 

That's simply because the Computer Games term RPG refeers to something different, than what the term rpg means from its roots, thus creating an ambiguity.

In computer Games the term describes mainly a game that focuses on you leveling your character, enhancing your skills etc, so it's mainly the technical continuation of various P&P Rulesets (like D&D for example). But this definition totally ignores the part that's in my experience always been the most important for any P&P session I've had. Creativity, Imagination and the freedom to do whatever the F you want. There's obviously limitations to that. In a P&P session the dungeon-/Gamemaster had to focus and guide the group to one coherent adventure, and when a single player strayed to far, there had to be consequences. And Obviously in Computer Games these limitations have to be stricter, as everything has to be preplanned, programmed, written, voiced over etc. The real question is: How much different Choices do you leave the player.

And FO4 does a pretty bad job at that, compared to earlier (sometimes already weak in that department) Bethesda titles, often giving the the player the choice between polite yes, reserved yes, sarcastic yes and maybe (which still accepted the quest, so it still was a yes).

So from the technical perspective is Fallout 4 still a RPG, but from the spirituell perspective it hardly has anything of a RPG left.

But that's where this "confusion" about the term stems from.

 

And, there, I am imagining that modding will be the answer - though perhaps not a satisfying answer? I get rather lazy about modding after I have installed a mod that crashes my game when I cannot easily tell which mod was doing that.

 

But I am also interested in ideas about what could have been done to increase role playing in this particular game.

 

(It's so trivially easy to be dissatisfied, but coming up with improvements that work well for lots of people can be daunting.)

 

I already gave an example, but it ended up as the last post on the 1st page and someone else posting pretty much directly after that.

Simply put: Give the player options to solve things differently than only the "slightly naive, goody two-shoes farmboy/girl" way.

 

I try not to waste my time worrying too much about what a game isn't and just try to enjoy it for what it is and for the most part, I've enjoyed Fallout 4 a lot, despite its obvious issues and quirks. I deal with the main story when I want to and when I don't, I don't even think about it.

I do quite enjoy FO4. I'm on my third character, after already having seen 2 of the endings, and I don't regret having bought the game. I'll probably play it even a fourth time, but it's very likely I won't be playing it a fifth time. I'll most likely put it away or I might for once concentrate on some modding, but compared to about 1500h on Skyrim, I only spent very little time on FO4. And that's kinda sad, because the game itself would have much more potential, if the story gave the player more choices and freedom.

[sen4mi]

I already gave an example, but it ended up as the last post on the 1st page and someone else posting pretty much directly after that.

Simply put: Give the player options to solve things differently than only the "slightly naive, goody two-shoes farmboy/girl" way.

 

 

But... a bulk of the quests involve killing everyone in sight.

 

Get the right perk and they also can involve cannibalism, for example.

 

This is your idea of "slightly naive, goody two-shoes farmboy/girl way"?

 

[RustyXXL]

But... a bulk of the quests involve killing everyone in sight.

Yes, Raiders, Supermutants, Feral Ghuls etc.

But where are the quests like Hey, this settlement over there would be a good addition for us, or a super strategical choice.

Sadly there are a bunch of settlers there, that don't want to cooperate with us.

We could now go diplomatic and do some stuff for them and negotiate a cooperation, or we could gather our forces and take over the place forcefully.

(Of course there were dozens of other possibilities, but I guess you get my point)

The game always, no matter what you do, gives you the feeling you are doing the right thing. Because you can't negotiate with the raiders, super mutants or feral ghouls anyway. Well, or at least the game won't let us.

 

Get the right perk and they also can involve cannibalism, for example.

I didn't ever take the Cannibalism Perk in any of the games, but is there more to it in FO4 than a Game Mechanic to heal yourself?

Does it in some way offer a way to explore the morality of Cannibalism in a post-apocalyptic Scenario?

Are there any repercussions for being a cannibal?

Does it even offer a tiny little bit of additional Quest content, or is it simply ignored by the whole game world?

 

This is your idea of "slightly naive, goody two-shoes farmboy/girl way"?

 

Yes, that's what the game, and the way the dialogues are written makes me feel like.

The only options I have at the beginning is to say I'm searching for an infant.

Even when facing father I still can only respond in a totally surprised fashion, and have no choice of saying "I suspected you might be somewhat older"

Why can't I extort a cut from sully at Thicket excavations? Or stop him, for that matter...

Why can't I get in any way involved, when you can learn about certain people being replaced by synths from the institute?

There's so much that the character Bethesda gives us simply chooses to ignore, and there is in fact relatively little you can do about it.

Sorry, there are so much more instances, I don't even want to list everything, but there is so much more potential for interesting storytelling, exploring different ways to solve these situations etc, yet bethesda chose to give us 1 way in different nuances, and because of the voiced player, voiced actors etc, there isn't all that much you can do with modding, without it feeling out of place.

[Aria]

Good points Rusty and well said, agree with both of your last posts.

 

[BoozeJunky]

So I'm thinking, perhaps we could better frame the argument in terms of how easy it is to RP in a particular game. I mean in Morrowind you can't do anything but RP because you get a completely blank slate. In Mass Effect you can choose to be rude or polite, but otherwise you're always Shepard. Some games have good support of role-playing, others try and tie you down to a single character.

 

Essentially, Fallout 4 is a Western JRPG - as it comes with the canned pre-set plot progression and player character typical of JRPGs with very little room allowed for player expression beyond arbitrary "what hat am I going to wear for this mission" and "in what tone of voice do I want to say Yes or Maybe Later". It gives the illusion of freedom, which really only serves to piss me off because it reminds me of what I don't have - and needlessly pulls the plot off the rails, ruining any sense of tension or urgency that Bethesda has been trying hamfistedly to instill. Hell, any sense of logical progression whatsoever, really. At least in Morrowind, there were built-in break points for the main quest in which your quest givers explicitly told you to fuck off for a while and join a guild, establish yourself in one of the houses, meet some people, quest for artifacts, and learn about the land and it's history. In modern Bethesda games, this isn't possible, because they have no concept of proper pacing for the type of game they are building. Or rather, they think the player wants a short, action packed, linear story where missions happen in quick succession to keep their fragile attention spans... but the nature of the very games themselves is the antithesis of this type of story-telling, because you are always bombarded with distractions, side quests, and just random exploring which naturally put a wedge between story missions. It's not believable to have my character play the frantic mama-bird searching desperately for her lost baby boy, and then just lapse into a bout of amnesia for two in-game months while she tends crops for strangers, does odd-jobs for her companions, and operates the wasteland version of Habitat for fucking Humanity. It's kind of disingenuous when, stumbling upon the next story mission lo these many months later, and she's right back into mama-bird mode as if the babe had been freshly plucked from her arms.

 

And honestly, while technically I can see where it's a competent game, I'm just not really having as much fun out of it as I would expect to. The least amount of fun I've had with any Bethesda title. So for me at least, I don't even know if I'd classify it as a good game. If it's going to force me into a more linear story with pre-set characters like a JRPG has... then I'd rather just play a damned JRPG and be done with it. Now it's just a question of whether I make another playthrough of Infinite Space for the DS (one of my all-time favorites), dust off the Dreamcast for some Skies of Arcadia, or take a risk with something irreverent and hyper-weeb like HyperDimensional Neptunia.

[Kaz Aanh]

I have 120 hours and I can't bring myself to replay this game again in a different setup/build. Also I have no urge to explore unexplored areas.

 

This game is just boring, its so shallow. Its not a bad game , just average.

 

This game is full of unfinished *barely working* features like settlements and wasted potential like Minutemen faction. I think Bethesda went too far with the "freedom, go anywhere do what you want". There is so much freedom that its boring and repetive.

 

This game has no replayability, even Fallout 3 had more of it.

[Aria]

I have 120 hours and I can't bring myself to replay this game again in a different setup/build. Also I have no urge to explore unexplored areas.

 

This game is just boring, its so shallow. Its not a bad game , just average.

 

This game is full of unfinished *barely working* features like settlements and wasted potential like Minutemen faction. I think Bethesda went too far with the "freedom, go anywhere do what you want". There is so much freedom that its boring and repetive.

 

This game has no replayability, even Fallout 3 had more of it.

Hmm my impression is more like its the oposite, there is lots of railroading going on for an open world, thats why its so shallow because they dont have respect for their own lore, they just thrown in some popular stuff without any real background to it and the world feels like a junkyard where you collect stuff or kill things but nothing of that has any significant impact or depth.

They are actually straying away from that formula IMO.

[DocClox]

I've been thinking a bit more on subject of cRPGs, their relationship with their paper based forebears and how it all applies to Fallout 4.

 

The pencil and paper RPGs were exercises in collaborative story telling as much as they were anything else. That was all there was back when I started role-playing. The collaborative element was important. It was essential. Without it all you were doing was sitting listening to the Dm tell you a story. Campaigns that did that never lasted beyond a session or two in my experience.

 

Then personal computers appeared and just about everyone who played paper RPGs thought "wouldn't it be great if we could put this on a computer?"

 

Hence the early cRPGs, which attempted to create a computer moderated equivalent of those paper-and-pencil games. If your game had levels, hit points and monsters, we were happy to call it an RPG. Partly because we were glad to see progress in moving our hobby on to computers, and partly because it let us zoom around the map getting our vicarious power trips without needing to find a regular meeting night as everyone's social schedules changed.

 

That's why, at the time, it didn't seem particularly important that these new cRPG games had abandoned the actual "role-play" elements of their forebears. For one thing, most of the games were great fun; for another, I think we all recognised that the actual role-playing elements were going to be a lot harder to implement than the roll-to-hit-AC0 side of things.

 

Then Bethesda came along and gave us cRPGs that were also role playing games in the Gygaxian sense of the term, and things got complicated. Morrowind had all the cRPG trappings, but it also gave us the ability to actually define a role and play it, as well as grinding levels and slaying monsters. It wasn't the first to do that: the original Fallouts, Arcarnum, Balder's Gate, even Nethack to the extent that it gave you a blank slate for a character, they all had some support for Gygaxian role playing. But it was the level of support for role-playing in the collaborative sense that really made Bethesda's games stand out. It took us back to the idea that the game defined the setting and the initial scenario, but left it to the player to describe the protagonist and decide how they solved the problem.

 

That element of collaborative story telling is something that Bethesda have been careful to protect ever since. Oblivion and Skyrim both give you a character without explicit background or motivation and let you choose how to interact with the setting and story. Not that either game is without its flaws, but they still make a point of not telling you who you are, what you want or how you feel. Even Fallout 3 kept the backstory to a minimum, briefly sketching life in the vault before leaving you free to search for your dad, stage an adolescent rebellion, or just get distracted by all the interesting things in the wasteland. You were still free to build any number of personalities and motivations. I never had the least problem role-playing in F3.

 

Fallout 4 is different. It doesn't just tell me who I am, it tells me what I want and how I feel. And it reinforces that hard-coded identity at every opportunity. There's only one person constructing this story, and it isn't me. And in a Fallout game, I find that tremendously frustrating.

 

Fallout 4 may be an cRPG in the levels, hit-points, and monsters sense, but it's not at all a role-playing game in the pencil-and-paper corroborative story-telling sense. Which is a shame, since it's that aspect of Beth's games has always been a major part of their appeal. It's the lack of this second sort of role-playing that I (and it seems a great many others) find so bitterly disappointing in Fallout 4.

[RustyXXL]

<snip>

Good post, full agree, as should be obvious by my previous posts.

 

Now I was thinking about if these issues could be fixed by modders some more.

The main Problem I see with that are the voice overs, as they can't easily be modified. There might be some possibilities with remixing the existing files, but I doubt this would be possible in every case. At the same time, I have no real experience what's possible in that regard, so take that with a grain of salt.

Another major problem with the current Engine is the dialogue-system. Limiting to only 4 possible answers is a hurdle, that's not that easy to overcome, without it fealing cumbersome and hiding answers behind 5 layers of "more..." entries.

Also large portions of the current quest-contents would have to be rewritten, additional solutions to existing Quests would have to be implemented etc while making sure you don't totally break existing quests. All in all this would be a major task. Possible, yes, but you'd probably need a modding team for that, and even then it would take quite some time.

I really would love to see this happen, and I certainly would support this, as I said before, I see FO4 having a really large potential, but at the same time, I personally don't even know where to start.

[DocClox]

Good post, full agree, as should be obvious by my previous posts.

Thank you. It was going to be a reply to your post originally, but I realised that I wasn't really addressing the points you'd made, so I posted it stand-alone instead.

 

The main Problem I see with that are the voice overs, as they can't easily be modified.

Well ... using Skyrim as a guide, it might be possible to change the voice type for the PCs to something that doesn't have any voice files. That would get us back the the Silent Player approach of earlier beth games. It would need subtitles enabled for the bits where the PC decides to have a discussion without directly involving you but at least we'd be able to add new content without it standing out like a sore thumb.

 

Another major problem with the current Engine is the dialogue-system. Limiting to only 4 possible answers is a hurdle, that's not that easy to overcome, without it fealing cumbersome and hiding answers behind 5 layers of "more..." entries.

On the bright side, two or three of those entries are usually redundant, sometimes all four. So there's ample scope for removing some of them and replacing them with something decent. It must still be possible to apply conditions to dialogue as well, so we can do things like set up different dialogue if you're wielding the Atomic Ray Of Silly Old Bat Disintegration when you talk to Mama Murphy. We'll need to run the mod that disables the wheel in favour of actual dialogue lists, but I can't see a downside there.

 

Apart from that, I suspect there'll be a pile of new NPCs and comms gadgets to give modders extra entry-points. And if we're lucky someone will find a way to have more than four options.

 

Also large portions of the current quest-contents would have to be rewritten, additional solutions to existing Quests would have to be implemented etc while making sure you don't totally break existing quests. All in all this would be a major task. Possible, yes, but you'd probably need a modding team for that, and even then it would take quite some time.

Yeah. It badly needs an alternative start mod, and that can't really work without a main quest overhaul since damn near everyone is used as an excuse to start whinging on about that stupid bloody kid. In fact, while I'm not generally a fan of such things, this game is crying out for a general overhaul mod. Something to stop every single exchange ending up with "OMG! They took my baby!"

 

 

But yeah, lot of work. On the other hand, it's going to be a while before I can start work on renovating that abandoned Institute Sexbot factory, so you never know...

[sen4mi]

We could now go diplomatic and do some stuff for them and negotiate a cooperation, or we could gather our forces and take over the place forcefully.

(Of course there were dozens of other possibilities, but I guess you get my point)

The game always, no matter what you do, gives you the feeling you are doing the right thing. Because you can't negotiate with the raiders, super mutants or feral ghouls anyway. Well, or at least the game won't let us.

 

So, yes, for example, your encounter with Covenant can end in a variety of ways. You might get control of the place. Or you might destroy it. In my current playthrough, neither of those is happening.

 

 

 

Get the right perk and they also can involve cannibalism, for example.

I didn't ever take the Cannibalism Perk in any of the games, but is there more to it in FO4 than a Game Mechanic to heal yourself?

Does it in some way offer a way to explore the morality of Cannibalism in a post-apocalyptic Scenario?

Are there any repercussions for being a cannibal?

Does it even offer a tiny little bit of additional Quest content, or is it simply ignored by the whole game world?

 

I have not taken the cannibalism perk myself, either - that just does not match my idea of fun. So all of the information I have about it is second hand. Or third hand. Or whatever.

 

Still, it seems that the game does include some consequences and comments from using that perk.

 

This is your idea of "slightly naive, goody two-shoes farmboy/girl way"?

 

Yes, that's what the game, and the way the dialogues are written makes me feel like.

 

So I guess now you know how serial killers must be feeling about themselves.

[pinky6225]

 

 

I've been thinking a bit more on subject of cRPGs, their relationship with their paper based forebears and how it all applies to Fallout 4.

The pencil and paper RPGs were exercises in collaborative story telling as much as they were anything else. That was all there was back when I started role-playing. The collaborative element was important. It was essential. Without it all you were doing was sitting listening to the Dm tell you a story. Campaigns that did that never lasted beyond a session or two in my experience.

Then personal computers appeared and just about everyone who played paper RPGs thought "wouldn't it be great if we could put this on a computer?"

Hence the early cRPGs, which attempted to create a computer moderated equivalent of those paper-and-pencil games. If your game had levels, hit points and monsters, we were happy to call it an RPG. Partly because we were glad to see progress in moving our hobby on to computers, and partly because it let us zoom around the map getting our vicarious power trips without needing to find a regular meeting night as everyone's social schedules changed.

That's why, at the time, it didn't seem particularly important that these new cRPG games had abandoned the actual "role-play" elements of their forebears. For one thing, most of the games were great fun; for another, I think we all recognised that the actual role-playing elements were going to be a lot harder to implement than the roll-to-hit-AC0 side of things.

Then Bethesda came along and gave us cRPGs that were also role playing games in the Gygaxian sense of the term, and things got complicated. Morrowind had all the cRPG trappings, but it also gave us the ability to actually define a role and play it, as well as grinding levels and slaying monsters. It wasn't the first to do that: the original Fallouts, Arcarnum, Balder's Gate, even Nethack to the extent that it gave you a blank slate for a character, they all had some support for Gygaxian role playing. But it was the level of support for role-playing in the collaborative sense that really made Bethesda's games stand out. It took us back to the idea that the game defined the setting and the initial scenario, but left it to the player to describe the protagonist and decide how they solved the problem.

That element of collaborative story telling is something that Bethesda have been careful to protect ever since. Oblivion and Skyrim both give you a character without explicit background or motivation and let you choose how to interact with the setting and story. Not that either game is without its flaws, but they still make a point of not telling you who you are, what you want or how you feel. Even Fallout 3 kept the backstory to a minimum, briefly sketching life in the vault before leaving you free to search for your dad, stage an adolescent rebellion, or just get distracted by all the interesting things in the wasteland. You were still free to build any number of personalities and motivations. I never had the least problem role-playing in F3.

Fallout 4 is different. It doesn't just tell me who I am, it tells me what I want and how I feel. And it reinforces that hard-coded identity at every opportunity. There's only one person constructing this story, and it isn't me. And in a Fallout game, I find that tremendously frustrating.

Fallout 4 may be an cRPG in the levels, hit-points, and monsters sense, but it's not at all a role-playing game in the pencil-and-paper corroborative story-telling sense. Which is a shame, since it's that aspect of Beth's games has always been a major part of their appeal. It's the lack of this second sort of role-playing that I (and it seems a great many others) find so bitterly disappointing in Fallout 4.

 

 

Interesting thread even though i haven't tried fallout 4 yet (waiting for you guys to get all the bugs removed )

 

Games like baldurs gate are mostly mentioned when the "what is a RPG" discussion starts and its true with that game you could always pick your class and make up your own back story about how you got to candlekeep where the story starts, you were always the bhaal spawn though so your role was defined by the game as the bhaal spawn so how much is being able to pick a role part of being an RPG?

 

With fallout 1 you were always the vault dweller out to get the sacred water chip

 

with fallout 2  you were always the descended of the vault dweller

 

If these are RPG's and picking your role within the game matters surely i should have been able to pick to be a mutant out to end the world or a bandit out to rob the world or if i could do these would we now have an open world/sand box simulator and not an RPG?
 

[BoozeJunky]

 

With fallout 1 you were always the vault dweller out to get the sacred water chip

 

with fallout 2  you were always the descended of the vault dweller

 

 

But those are things that happen to your character - but doesn't necessarily inform you on anything about who your character is. Similarly, in Fallout 3, you are always a vault dweller who searches for your dad. In New Vegas, you always start as a courier. But in both instances, right from the very start of the tutorials, you're presented with choices that let you shape what kind of character you will be. When Amata is getting bullied by Butch, is your character the kind to help her out? Do they mind their own business and let them continue? Do you fight Butch? Do you join him and pick on Amata as well? Just because you were born in the state you were, in the country you were, in the time you were, to the family you were - does that mean your personality is set from birth without you being able to define yourself as who you are? Of course not, and it's the same in an RPG. 

 

You can't generally have a TOTALLY blank slate - because you need some starting point at which to inject the player into the world. A totally blank slate has nothing to grow off of. The trick is to create as blank a slate as possible in order to allow the player to define their own character as the story evolves, while still providing enough of a hook to get the story started and the player invested in it.

[Shiratama]

Games like baldurs gate are mostly mentioned when the "what is a RPG" discussion starts and its true with that game you could always pick your class and make up your own back story about how you got to candlekeep where the story starts, you were always the bhaal spawn though so your role was defined by the game as the bhaal spawn so how much is being able to pick a role part of being an RPG?

 

With fallout 1 you were always the vault dweller out to get the sacred water chip

 

with fallout 2  you were always the descended of the vault dweller

 

If these are RPG's and picking your role within the game matters surely i should have been able to pick to be a mutant out to end the world or a bandit out to rob the world or if i could do these would we now have an open world/sand box simulator and not an RPG?

 

I'd argue that Baldur's Gate also fails at being a RPG (especially the second game), as the race or class you pick doesn't matter. In BG, your only role is that of a godlike killing machine. You could sport a 25 charisma and you'll fail to persuade anyone to stop attacking you unless the plot demands it. You could be a half-orc with 3 Charisma and 3 Intelligence and you'll be treated exactly the same as a genius elf. Almost everything is solved by killing and if you avoid it as much as possible, you'll be seriously underpowered against the big bad evil guys.

 

Icewind Dale games, despite being dungeon crawlers, ironically have more stat and skill dialogue checks than Baldur's Gate.

 

Fallout 1 and 2 (and NV to a much lesser extent) give you options in how you choose to solve situations. This is the main difference with BG, and imo, the most important part of a CRPG. You could add Arcanum in that category too - you can be bloodthirsty, you can be pacifist, and the world react to your choices and actions.

 

Now I don't think that failing as a RPG means failing as a game. I love Baldur's Gate games and mod them/replay them regularly. But they're closer to a dungeon crawler with fluffy dialogue than a genuine CRPG.

[RustyXXL]

So, yes, for example, your encounter with Covenant can end in a variety of ways. You might get control of the place. Or you might destroy it. In my current playthrough, neither of those is happening.

Yes, there are some limited examples, beneath the main Quest, where your actions actually make a difference, this doesn't negate the fact, however, that 90% of the quest content is absolutely linear.

I have not taken the cannibalism perk myself, either - that just does not match my idea of fun. So all of the information I have about it is second hand. Or third hand. Or whatever.

 

Still, it seems that the game does include some consequences and comments from using that perk.

If there is something more to it, good, but I still doubt there is any depth to it, judging from what I read about cannibalism in Skyrim, and the fact that Skyrim in general did better in the roleplaying department.

So I guess now you know how serial killers must be feeling about themselves.

 

Well, if you have a modus operandi, and mainly "innocent" people a s victim, yes, probably. Given that most of the time you have no other choices other than ignoring all of the quests or killing the raiders, supermutants etc, I don't really see how it would fit the image of a serial killer. Maybe an indoctrinated soldier/terrorist at best.

 

Interesting thread even though i haven't tried fallout 4 yet (waiting for you guys to get all the bugs removed )

 

Games like baldurs gate are mostly mentioned when the "what is a RPG" discussion starts and its true with that game you could always pick your class and make up your own back story about how you got to candlekeep where the story starts, you were always the bhaal spawn though so your role was defined by the game as the bhaal spawn so how much is being able to pick a role part of being an RPG?

 

With fallout 1 you were always the vault dweller out to get the sacred water chip

 

with fallout 2  you were always the descended of the vault dweller

 

If these are RPG's and picking your role within the game matters surely i should have been able to pick to be a mutant out to end the world or a bandit out to rob the world or if i could do these would we now have an open world/sand box simulator and not an RPG?

 

You missed the big second thing mentioned here, freedom of choice, something that is very very limited in most parts of the FO4 Quest content.

 

Now I don't think that failing as a RPG means failing as a game. I love Baldur's Gate games and mod them/replay them regularly. But they're closer to a dungeon crawler with fluffy dialogue than a genuine CRPG.

I already stated it. Fallout 4 is a great game in my eyes, and I got excellent gameplay time for my money. FO4 has some really great aspects. Exploration is pretty rewarding, and if you want you can get distracted from your quests at almost every corner. I also did like the story, even if it wasn't that deep and that surprising, but it still was more than okay in my eyes. And all the little details all around the world, telling little mini-stories (like the 2 Skelletons leaning over a safe, one stranling the other etc) are just awesome. You literally have hundreds of hours to discover stuff in this game, and that's awesome. It just has very, very few Roleplaying qualities, which is kinda sad, because the rest of the game is really good in my eyes.

[sen4mi]

 

So, yes, for example, your encounter with Covenant can end in a variety of ways. You might get control of the place. Or you might destroy it. In my current playthrough, neither of those is happening.

Yes, there are some limited examples, beneath the main Quest, where your actions actually make a difference, this doesn't negate the fact, however, that 90% of the quest content is absolutely linear.

 

You have touched on an interesting paradox in the structure of games.

 

Games need not only goals you are trying to reach, but they need occasional obstacles to stall you or prevent you from getting there, and they need some considerable distances between the start and the end.

 

And all of this needs to be fun (for some equally paradoxical concept of "fun").

 

So, after thinking through these contradictions, I think you are really conveying to me that the choices you are making do not seem to matter.

 

And, partially, this is a consequence of the moddable and modular structure of the game. Put differently it's almost like you are telling me you feel the game is not structured enough. That you need content to be blocked off based on your choices.

 

And that gets to be difficult because if lots of choices block off content then you wind up with not much content being playable. Procedural generation can help here, but that introduces a sameness of its own.

 

So, really, I think you are talking about a need for multiple levels of complexity, and occasional surprises (probably with some kind of exponential fall-off - important things being rarer and not-so-important things being commoner).

 

Anyways... raise your expectations too high and you get into the impossible (and the mis-remembered).

 

It's good to have definite ideas of the things you like - that gives you something to work towards. But I guess also I expect this view of things to be changing over time, especially after you have started to see how your view of things plays out.

 

But I could be wrong, of course.

[RustyXXL]

You have touched on an interesting paradox in the structure of games.

 

Games need not only goals you are trying to reach, but they need occasional obstacles to stall you or prevent you from getting there, and they need some considerable distances between the start and the end.

 

And all of this needs to be fun (for some equally paradoxical concept of "fun").

 

So, after thinking through these contradictions, I think you are really conveying to me that the choices you are making do not seem to matter.

 

And, partially, this is a consequence of the moddable and modular structure of the game. Put differently it's almost like you are telling me you feel the game is not structured enough. That you need content to be blocked off based on your choices.

 

And that gets to be difficult because if lots of choices block off content then you wind up with not much content being playable. Procedural generation can help here, but that introduces a sameness of its own.

 

So, really, I think you are talking about a need for multiple levels of complexity, and occasional surprises (probably with some kind of exponential fall-off - important things being rarer and not-so-important things being commoner).

 

Anyways... raise your expectations too high and you get into the impossible (and the mis-remembered).

 

It's good to have definite ideas of the things you like - that gives you something to work towards. But I guess also I expect this view of things to be changing over time, especially after you have started to see how your view of things plays out.

 

But I could be wrong, of course.

Nope, I'm talking about that for the most part the choice you have is wether you do a quest or you just ignore it. You really don't have a choice of How to solve a problem, just wether you solve it or not. If you decide to solve it, for the most part the solution is kill all raiders, Supermutants, ferals, synths etc.

Let's go back to thicket excavations, just to avoid further story spoilers in this thread, not because there wouldn't be any other examples.

You can find Sullys Journal in the terminal at the entrance. If you read it, it is strongly suggesting, that sully wants to rob traders. You can even take the journal as a holotape with you, indicating that at some point there might have been other solution planned.

Yet you can do nothing with that. The only choice you have is wether to help sully with the pump or not. There were so much more possibilities from the starting scenario, and the area is in no way relevant for the further questing, so it would have been quite easy to implement different solutions to that scenario.

There are plenty more examples, and Yes, I know, the choices a Computer Game might offer will always be limited compared to a good P&P Roleplay session, it's just that bethesda did a very poor job in supporting different choices in Fallout 4 and they did better (still not always really good, but better) in previous titles.

Most of the "choices" they offer in Fallout 4 are very artificial, and mostly different shades of saying yes. The Character you are given is very strict structured, the answers you can choose are usually also very limited. Just different shades to whine for your infant son (While it being doubtful from the beginning, that your son is indeed still infant)

Yes you can choose to ignore what you and everyone around is saying to "roleplay" whatever the f you want, but I like to respond to te world around me, and yet, my possible reactions are extremly limited. And this is also something, Bethesda did better in previous titles.

In Fallout 4 you simply have little choice to be the character you imagine yourself, if you want to follow the quests in any way other than what Bethesda says how you have to be.

Maybe Nate felt trapped in his relationship and only still was there because of the child. Nope, Bethesda says he has to cry at everybody about his killed wife and missing infant son.

[sen4mi]

Ok, I am interested - what other outcomes would you like for thicket excavations (other than "aid Sully", "defeat Sully" or "ignore Sully")?

 

Other options I can think of might be:

 

* instigating conflict between Sully's group and some other group.

* converting Sully to some other belief system.

 

And implementing either of those in a satisfying fashion (while maintaining modability of the game) seems daunting.

 

So, I am very interested in your ideas!

[RustyXXL]

Let me first leave this link here:

Skallagrim ranting about some things he dislikes about FO4 partially touching on this threads topic at around the 5 minute mark.

I thought it might be of interest to some.

 

Ok, I am interested - what other outcomes would you like for thicket excavations (other than "aid Sully", "defeat Sully" or "ignore Sully")?

 

Other options I can think of might be:

 

* instigating conflict between Sully's group and some other group.

* converting Sully to some other belief system.

 

And implementing either of those in a satisfying fashion (while maintaining modability of the game) seems daunting.

 

So, I am very interested in your ideas!

Okay, let's go with the ones out of the top of my head. I'm ignoring solutions I had in mind, if there were a way to become a raider yourself as a player.

1. Extort a regular sum from Sully (possibly tied to Charism/Intimidation perk check) for helping him. Thicket excavation basically develops the same, but the Raiders in Thicket Excavations will become Neutral to the player. At some point they mighgt get uneasy with the player getting caps, and this might lead to additional Quests, for example the player needing to re-negotiate, the raiders become hostile again etc.

2. Destroy/Sabotage the pumps, Resulting in the quarry never getting emptied out. Sully might get hostile

3. Talking to Sully about his ways of doing things, with the possibility of him regretting his way. Possibility for follow up quests to solve some problems he has with his gang and why he can't leave easily for whatever reason. In the end he could for example Join one of your settlements. The quarry could stay full of water, or could be converted into a player settlement. (yes, you kinda already mentioned this one)

4. Warn nearby settlements about the possibility of a raider gang developing, not solving the situation immediately. But allows to not jump to any conclusions, but to see how things develop. Kinda simmilar to the current state, but grants the player more awarenes, and doesn't make him seem that oblivious. Allows for most of the other solutions to still take effect.

5. You get Hints about Mirelurks being nearby (Or in the Generator for that matter). Let me work with that. Lure them out and let them take care of the problem. (Yes, very similar to No. 2)

 

I'm sure I could come up with some more variations, if I gave it some more thought, but I guess you get the point. There are plenty of possible solutions, if you really want to give the player the choice.

You could also tie in different perks. For example only with a fitting Explosives perk you could manage to blow up the pump. Suddenly your Investment in this perk feels more important, because you have a choice that you only have because of that perk.

Yes, This kinda ties in with "locking content away". But Locking Content away on it's own isn't the answer. Locking Content away because of Choices can, but doesn't have to happen.

 

Another "slightly off) example:

Start a new game, and keep saying no to the Vault-Tec Rep. You can keep saying no, but ultimately Bethesda says: Yeah you say no, but we both know you mean yes, and just presents you with the special stat screen. Yes, I know this is something that has to happen, but the way it happens is just screaming: "Yeah, we don't give a shit about what you are saying". So why even give the player the pseudo-choice of saying no?

There are quite a few more occurences where you can say no, but the whole world does treat you as if you have said maybe later, so your choice of saying no, ultimately isn't a real choice anyway.