Has Beth lost its edge on RPG gaming?

[ToJKa]

All major game creators have lost it's edge, not just Bethesda!

Though positively id regained their edge with the new Doom. It's only worse than the classic because new games are automatically worse than the classics

And they apparently borrowed writers from BGS, but hey, at least they got ever the "My baby! My baby!" thing they had going in Fallout 4

 

(Seriously, the unadulterated applied corporate stupidevil of UAC makes Al look like a very smart, well thought out, reasonable character.)

[Guest]

 

Doesn't happen in Morrowind either. At least I tend to view the opening cinematic (not that I ever watch it) as just that rather than something that happens to the player character. In any case, you're free to regard it as a weird dream or to assume that your character forgot all about it on waking.

 

 

Only for your character to wake up and remember that they were sent on a mission by the Emperor who, as we know, wants the prophecy fulfilled for his political gain.

 

Whereas in Skyrim, you start out as a random nobody who was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.  If you take Hadvar or Ralof's advice and go the other direction, one never has to worry about the dragons.

 

Skyrim is better, admittedly. The game doesn't tell you who you are or how you feel or what you want, but your options for describing your character to the game are pretty much limited to what race your character is are and how big her tits are. There's also the "Last Dragonborn" thing. Morowind is careful to let you decide whether or not your dude is Nerevar Reborn. In Skyrim you're Dragonborn from the word go.

 

Not quite.  Taking the alternate route by killing Vivec leads you to the same end, which is the fulfillment of the 7th Trial.  Not to mention that Azura refers to you as Nerevar at the end of Tribunal regardless of the path you took in the base game.  

 

Whereas in Skyrim, you start out as a random nobody who was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.  If you take Hadvar or Ralof's advice and separate, one never has to worry about the MQ.

[DocClox]

Only for your character to wake up and remember that they were sent on a mission by the Emperor who, as we know, wants the prophecy fulfilled for his political gain.

Only for your character to wake up with no idea why he's there, actually. You get given some septims and told to report to Caius Cosades who you have no idea who he is. The first you hear about working for the Emperor is once you've arrived in Balmora, tracked down the old skooma head and agreed to follow his orders.

 

The fact that the Emperor has plans for you doesn't really impact on who you are.

 

Whereas in Skyrim, you start out as a random nobody who was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.  If you take Hadvar or Ralof's advice and go the other direction, one never has to worry about the dragons.

 

You're just a random Last Dragonborn who happened to be in the right place to be one of the first mortals to witness the returned Alduin. You can ignore the main quest, but you can't possibly engage with it, (or with the Dragonborn MQ) without acknowledging that birthright. You have a superpower, gained not by your own efforts, but by the simple fact of your birth. There really is no getting away from it.

 

Not quite.  Taking the alternate route by killing Vivec leads you to the same end, which is the fulfillment of the 7th Trial.  Not to mention that Azura refers to you as Nerevar at the end of Tribunal regardless of the path you took in the base game.

She hails you as Nerevar Reborn in the Cavern of the Incarnate as well. Then again, if Azura was so good at telling Nerevar from other mortals, there wouldn't be a cavern full of failed incarnates. If you want to be Nerevar then you can certainly interpret it that way, but the game gives you ample wriggle room if you don't. That's pretty much the point really.

 

You can also take the view that's popular on the reddit teslore board, and say that the player in Morrowind mantles Saint Nerevar and that you are Nerevar Reborn in same sense that the Champion of Cyrdiil gets to be Sheogorath Reborn.You get to take on the role, but it's not on account of any birthright. Still can't say that about the Last Dragonborn.

[GrimReaper]

People have criticized the blank slate character you play in Bethesda's RPGs many, many times as far as I can recall. They tried to please both crowds with FO4 and that didn't go very well. That being said, the Fallout-series always had a player character that had more ties to the world than the TES-series. I mean, starting out as a stupid tribal with high knowledge in energy weapons in FO2 was hardly more immersive than the murderhobo parent in FO4.

[DocClox]

That being said, the Fallout-series always had a player character that had more ties to the world than the TES-series. I mean, starting out as a stupid tribal with high knowledge in energy weapons in FO2 was hardly more immersive than the murderhobo parent in FO4.

You have to have some sort of connection with the game world. Tribal, Vault Dweller, Corpiscle, Prisoner, it doesn't really matter. What's important (from a role-play perspective anyway) is that they give you as much freedom as possible to imagine who you are within that context. In Fallout two you play a kid with all of his/her major life choices still ahead of them, and if you choose, you can opt to start with an aptitude for energy weapons. I don't have a problem with that particularly.

 

In Fallout 4 you start with a character who has made most of their life choices already. That greatly constrains who you can be in the game.

[GrimReaper]

 

You have to have some sort of connection with the game world. Tribal, Vault Dweller, Corpiscle, Prisoner, it doesn't really matter. What's important (from a role-play perspective anyway) is that they give you as much freedom as possible to imagine who you are within that context. In Fallout two you play a kid with all of his/her major life choices still ahead of them, and if you choose, you can opt to start with an aptitude for energy weapons. I don't have a problem with that particularly.

 

In Fallout 4 you start with a character who has made most of their life choices already. That greatly constrains who you can be in the game.

 

 

I wouldn't call it some sort of connection, it has always been a pretty strong one imo. The games just didn't care about your background after a few hours anymore, which made it easy to forget why you are actually out there doing things. At the end of FO2, it was like 'oh yeah, the weird tribals wanted the GECK or something'. It also doesn't make much sense that a primitive tribal could start with a knack for energy weapons considering the tribe worshipped the vault suit like it was some kind of holy artifact.

 

In FO4, the PC made their choices, correct - in the old world. They don't translate well into the new one so you don't really start with anything other than where your stupid baby went. The game gives you enough opportunities to change from friendly and caring parent to a psycho - I mean your spouse gets murdered and your child gets abducted plus you find yourself in a very hostile environment. That's enough reason to go haywire considering there are already shows, books and comics that work like that, see stuff like The Walking Dead or The Road. People there change from open minded, friendly and caring persons to ice cold killers if the need arises. What they were before the world went to shit suddenly doesn't matter anymore.

[Jazzman]

 

That being said, the Fallout-series always had a player character that had more ties to the world than the TES-series. I mean, starting out as a stupid tribal with high knowledge in energy weapons in FO2 was hardly more immersive than the murderhobo parent in FO4.

You have to have some sort of connection with the game world. Tribal, Vault Dweller, Corpiscle, Prisoner, it doesn't really matter. What's important (from a role-play perspective anyway) is that they give you as much freedom as possible to imagine who you are within that context. In Fallout two you play a kid with all of his/her major life choices still ahead of them, and if you choose, you can opt to start with an aptitude for energy weapons. I don't have a problem with that particularly.

 

In Fallout 4 you start with a character who has made most of their life choices already. That greatly constrains who you can be in the game.

 

Disagree. It doesn't really matter if your leave Vault 101 as a juvenile in a search for 'daddy' or Vault 111 as young adult for the PC's kid, the intellectual demand (and thus the age requirement) for the latter is just slightly increased, as is the support along the journey. In both cases the journey is the destination and thus an individual experience for the mind. It's up to us how we play these games, what depth of experience we prefer in game. No doubt, the scripts of Fallout 3 and 4 were written by adults, the one of Skyrim, however, could have been the product of a thirteen year old if... if Alduin weren't the PC's alter ego one has to overcome first. But that only a few players have ever realized. So, some things do change in modern games, they ain't moved storybooks as in Morrowind anymore that still require good reading skills to understand the complexity of the story, they increasingly become entertaining pseudo movies with the PC in the lead. Time has changed, that is inevitable and unstoppable. One can't be forever young in a big and still unknown world that attracts our attention and imagination only to be understood as idealized for romanticized memory later when we are getting older and the world smaller. An X no longer marks the spot...

[Guest endgameaddiction]

It's really a pity that Fallout 4 does not have Karma anymore. Even more a pity that they didn't decide to use Reputation. Both really play a major factor into Fallout series.

 

For those that don't know because I'm pretty sure there are many out there that started with Fallout 4 as their first sequel in the franchise.

 

• Karma determines whether your are a good, neutral or evil person depending the things you do and which ever you become will have access to dialogue options/choices.
• Reputation is more of what you do in this world that will have consequences on you from NPCs.  Like if killing a hoard of NCR troops will drop your Reputation the more NCR you kill eventually will get any NCR faction to hate on you and become your enemies. The consequences of that in FNV were any settlement and fort that pertain to NCR faction were hostile against you. You can kiss doing any quests for any of those factions and forts goodbye.

I always read people never much cared for Karma in Fallout 3 over Reputation in New Vegas, but I think both always played an essential role in their Fallout game. There's nothing to compare about them since they both have their objectives that can seamlessly work together in one game. Fallout 3 just lacked having Reputation in it, where Karma somewhat made up for it.

 

I also can't believe they stripped weapon and armor/clothing condition from the game. I really don't know what the hell they were trying to do with Fallout 4. I feel like they purposely left out these features so that the console kids don't have to think so much and just shoot their pistol. Same for the dialogue system. All the lines point to the same choice so you don't have to make the effort to read much or think about what you are reading. Just push what ever option and we'll do the rest.

 

Fallout 4 has to be the most mediocre game of all time.

 

[Nullified]

It's really a pity that Fallout 4 does not have Karma anymore. Even more a pity that they didn't decide to use Reputation. Both really play a major factor into Fallout series.

 

For those that don't know because I'm pretty sure there are many out there that started with Fallout 4 as their first sequel in the franchise.

 

• Karma determines whether your are a good, neutral or evil person depending the things you do and which ever you become will have access to dialogue options/choices.
• Reputation is more of what you do in this world that will have consequences on you from NPCs.  Like if killing a hoard of NCR troops will drop your Reputation the more NCR you kill eventually will get any NCR faction to hate on you and become your enemies. The consequences of that in FNV were any settlement and fort that pertain to NCR faction were hostile against you. You can kiss doing any quests for any of those factions and forts goodbye.

I always read people never much cared for Karma in Fallout 3 over Reputation in New Vegas, but I think both always played an essential role in their Fallout game. There's nothing to compare about them since they both have their objectives that can seamlessly work together in one game. Fallout 3 just lacked having Reputation in it, where Karma somewhat made up for it.

 

I also can't believe they stripped weapon and armor/clothing condition from the game. I really don't know what the hell they were trying to do with Fallout 4. I feel like they purposely left out these features so that the console kids don't have to think so much and just shoot their pistol. Same for the dialogue system. All the lines point to the same choice so you don't have to make the effort to read much or think about what you are reading. Just push what ever option and we'll do the rest.

 

Fallout 4 has to be the most mediocre game of all time.

 

This, a thousand times. That does not mean I don't enjoy Fo4, but it really lacks in some truly major aspects. I still remember starting up Fallout and mere minutes into the game noticing that there was no Karma. Didn't take long to discover there was no reputation either. Very shortly after I arrived at the conclusion that it simply doesn't matter how you complete any objective, no matter how small. The only thing that allows for some player choice are the factions and even there, you're forced along with ideas you may just not like, your input in the story is simply not required. It'd play out the same without you there.

 

The game just lacks severely in alternative options. Meaning, no matter if I choose to side with or against any particular NPC, the story continues the exact same way. For an RPG that's not acceptable. The whole idea of RP (Role Playing) is that you decide how the story unfolds, based on decisions you make. One major letdown I recall right now was on my first playthrough. I played a charisma focused character and eventually stumbled across the Diamond City Blues quest. At one point, without giving away too many spoilers, the player is confronted by a criminal and is seemingly given the option to tell them to stand down. Which I did, but they turned hostile anyway. I wasn't happy about that, loaded and quick saved mid dialogue.

 

Taunting them, calming them, telling them you have nothing to do with any of it, doing whatever, it didn't matter. They turned hostile to the player. The same thing ALWAYS happened. And that's just one instance. The game is full of similar moments where it just feels like you might as well have went on the offensive right away, skipping any sort of dialogue completely, because a charisma/speech focused character is only useful if you want to pry loose a few extra caps for completing some missions.

 

Another thing that bugs me to no end is dialogue when you're a sneak heavy character. The entire point is that you get the jump on people. But no, the second we're talking about, for example, someone threatening an ally of yours (the Forged, the Silver Shroud...) everyone knows exactly where you are. Or with random NPCs approaching you for some kind of side quest. Seriously, how does Edward Deegan manage to find me every single time, often while I'm sneaking around?

 

And don't even get me started on those generic settlement quests. Really, did Mr. Finch manage to get kidnapped again? You'd swear settlers get in trouble just to keep you on some generic, uninteresting, meaningless pursuit to keep them entertained.

 

Game wise, Fallout 4 is enjoyable. RPG wise, it's one of my biggest disappointments yet. The story is supposed to lack in detail. Even if only so you can fill in the blanks. The main story in Fallout 4 is utterly linear without room for your input. There are no blanks. Shaun's kidnapper dies. No. Matter. What. Picked one faction? Good. Now, wage war against anything else. Got a problem with that? Too bad. Your opinion is not needed. I really liked a peaceful approach in previous Fallout games. Sometimes it required some careful planning, picking your options wisely. All part of the fun. Anyone can murder their way through the story. Talking your way through it was potentially much more challenging. Usually much more rewarding, too. I miss that.

 

Don't be tricked into thinking you can build your own character. Fallout 4 is the first Fallout game where your character is built for you. Bethesda did lose its edge. No other way around that.

[GrimReaper]

 

Taunting them, calming them, telling them you have nothing to do with any of it, doing whatever, it didn't matter. They turned hostile to the player. The same thing ALWAYS happened. And that's just one instance. The game is full of similar moments where it just feels like you might as well have went on the offensive right away, skipping any sort of dialogue completely, because a charisma/speech focused character is only useful if you want to pry loose a few extra caps for completing some missions.

 

 

 

Yeah but it's still important that you can chose how to react to something. If you try the civil and diplomatic way, that tells something about your character. If you chose the aggressive option, that tells something about your character, too. Your complaint is directed at the metagaming aspect, and you're right about that. A charisma build might not be as strong as a luck/crit build, but that's not what RPGs are about, imo. You can only influence what you do, you should not always have a way of talking your way out, because it simply doesn't work like that, no matter how forked your tongue is. Some people will attack you no matter what you say and I think it's important that games include some of that as well.

 

That being said, there are quests where you can talk instead of fight. Not all of them include that option, and that's fine in my book.

[DocClox]

I wouldn't call it some sort of connection, it has always been a pretty strong one imo.

I think you misunderstand my point slightly. When I say "some sort of connection" I mean the character has to have some sort of relationship with the context, even if it's only a stranger-in-a-strange land sort of thing. There must, necessarily, be some level of contextualisation, be it strong or weak between the game world and your character within that world.

 

The games just didn't care about your background after a few hours anymore, which made it easy to forget why you are actually out there doing things. At the end of FO2, it was like 'oh yeah, the weird tribals wanted the GECK or something'.

I don't have a problem with that, to be frank. I mean by the time you get to the end the tribe are all dead anyway (either that or I was just very bad at getting to the GECK in time? One of the two, anyway) and by that stage there are other matters demanding your attention that (even if you have saved your tribe) you can no longer ignore.

 

But the fact that the game does its best to get out of your face and let you imagine things the way you want ... that has to be a plus in my book.

 

It also doesn't make much sense that a primitive tribal could start with a knack for energy weapons considering the tribe worshipped the vault suit like it was some kind of holy artifact.

It doesn't make much sense that Mozart was composing original music at the age of five based purely on watching his elder brother's lessons, but that's the way if happened. At the end of the day though, it's an abstract gameplay mechanism. You're free to imagine it any way you want. Again, I'd take that as a plus.

 

In FO4, the PC made their choices, correct - in the old world. They don't translate well into the new one so you don't really start with anything other than where your stupid baby went.

So basically, you're saying that if you don't like playing a pre-war early-thirties, recently bereaved lady lawyer with power armor training, you can play an insane pre-war early-thirties, recently bereaved lady lawyer with power armor training and that makes up for it.

 

Call me picky, but that still feels like a fairly hefty constraint.

 

In both cases the journey is the destination and thus an individual experience for the mind. It's up to us how we play these games, what depth of experience we prefer in game.

However, different games offer different levels of support for the process. Morrowind goes out of its way to allow the player the freedom to imagine themselves in whatever role they want. Fallout 4 keeps sandbagging the player with OMG! Gotta find the baby! GOTTA FIND THE BABY! One game works to enable role-playing, the other works to try and limit it.

 

No doubt, the scripts of Fallout 3 and 4 were written by adults, the one of Skyrim, however, could have been the product of a thirteen year old if... if Alduin weren't the PC's alter ego one has to overcome first. But that only a few players have ever realized.

Me too, I think. Would it be rude of me to say I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here?

 

So, some things do change in modern games, they ain't moved storybooks as in Morrowind anymore that still require good reading skills to understand the complexity of the story, they increasingly become entertaining pseudo movies with the PC in the lead.

If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie. From Bethesda, I'm looking for something other than that.

[bjornk]

Many people who like role-playing games actually prefer that "blank state" because it means more role-playing freedom. The people who complain about that are probably the ones who lack imagination, who most likely play watch shit games movies like Uncharted, who shouldn't be playing role-playing games... like at all.

 

FO2 doesn't dictate anything about your past relationships, marital status, your age or your previous job. The only given about your past is that you are a tribal and grandchildren of the Vault Dweller. You are not "stupid" unless you choose it and if you do, it changes your game experience significantly, unlike FO4. Even the main quest in FO2 gives you a lot more freedom than FO4. You can always say "fuck this tribal shit, fuck geck, I'm gonna be a pornstar!" and not feel out of character at all, but doing that kind of thing would be significantly difficult in FO4.

 

While I agree that having knowledge on energy weapons, or being able to blow up temple doors with C4 presumably with zero knowledge of explosives (actually the whole Temple of Trials thing is literally bullshit) doesn't make much sense at the beginning of the game, but neither does instantly being able to operate a power armor and a minigun only with a law degree...

[Guest endgameaddiction]

I don't like blank slate characters and I certainly don't lack imagination. I rather have a character with a form of background that I can go off of and then into my own thing. Exactly like the Lone Wanderer. When it comes to Geralt, there is no room for RPing like in Fallout because you are set on a course from start to finish. You are Geralt no matter what. Not my type of games anymore. Never got into the series, but I can't say it's a bad game. And I can't say it's not a RP because it more than likely is. It's just from a different stand point of view. It's no different than playing as Squall or Cloud from Final Fantasy.
 

What makes it an RP is the dialogue choices you make in the story. And the outcome of those choices at that moment or later on in the game.

 

Fallout and TES should never ever have a built character. Fallout 4 is pretty much pushing it even though you can still create your own character by naming it, giving it an appearance, going out and killing what ever (or almost what ever you want), but the problem with that game is that it force feeds you the main story and reminds you what you are when you are trying to ignore that. It's just not good for their style of open world sandbox.

 

Having a semi-fixed or blank slate character is fine as long as you don't get forced to be attached to what you were. But if we are going to throw a blank slate character into a world, we might as well remove a main story and only leave in the side quests that has nothing to do with who or what you were because you are just some random person creating your own story.

[bjornk]

"Blank state" doesn't mean "no background", it means that you are given very little about your background and you "imagine" the rest of it. If you can't do that then yes, you either lack imagination or you don't like using it. Actually, it would be even better if you can choose or make up what little background you will have in the game, which would give you even more room to RP. To me, how big the room to role-play is, determines if a "role-playing game" is good or not. (fug, I've failed to phrase it properly!)

 

What makes it an RP is the dialogue choices you make in the story. And the outcome of those choices at that moment or later on in the game.

Not just dialogue choices (assuming they actually matter in the game), all choices you make in the game is role-playing. Role-playing starts at the character creation screen.

 

Choices that only matter in your mind (e.g. cosmetic choices or choices that doesn't make any real difference) are also role-playing but they don't define the game's genre. What I mean by that is, you can still do this kind of role-playing in a game which isn't a role-playing game (i.e. one that doesn't respond to your choices in any meaningful way).

 

Fallout and TES should never ever have a built character. Fallout 4 is pretty much pushing it even though you can still create your own character by naming it, giving it an appearance, going out and killing what ever (or almost what ever you want), but the problem with that game is that it force feeds you the main story and reminds you what you are when you are trying to ignore that. It's just not good for their style of open world sandbox.

While FO4 is worse, Skyrim isn't too different in that regard. You can consciously try to avoid the MQ and things revolve around it, which means you won't be able to fully play the content you paid for, but that still doesn't change the fact that these games were largely built around their MQs.

 

But if we are going to throw a blank slate character into a world, we might as well remove a main story and only leave in the side quests that has nothing to do with who or what you were because you are just some random person creating your own story.

That would be the best RP experience, but it would require an actual living world with NPCs driven by much smarter AI which dynamically creates quests and content. Not sure if RP games are going in that direction though... Thing is, computer games are no longer made or played by escapist nerds with high intelligence and imagination.

[Guest endgameaddiction]

We probably would already be there if it wasn't for consoles holding us back.

 

I want to hang on to faith that there will be a company one day that focuses exclusively on PC and makes a game that blows Bethesda off the map. I won't think twice to migrate and never look back.

[Jazzman]

 

No doubt, the scripts of Fallout 3 and 4 were written by adults, the one of Skyrim, however, could have been the product of a thirteen year old if... if Alduin weren't the PC's alter ego one has to overcome first. But that only a few players have ever realized.

Me too, I think. Would it be rude of me to say I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here?

 

Of course not, I didn't expect something else.

[Nullified]

 

Yeah but it's still important that you can chose how to react to something. If you try the civil and diplomatic way, that tells something about your character. If you chose the aggressive option, that tells something about your character, too. Your complaint is directed at the metagaming aspect, and you're right about that. A charisma build might not be as strong as a luck/crit build, but that's not what RPGs are about, imo. You can only influence what you do, you should not always have a way of talking your way out, because it simply doesn't work like that, no matter how forked your tongue is. Some people will attack you no matter what you say and I think it's important that games include some of that as well.

That being said, there are quests where you can talk instead of fight. Not all of them include that option, and that's fine in my book.

 

 

My point is that Bethesda with Fo4's new approach severely hurt its potential for replayability. Over the years I put around 2500 hours in Skyrim. A very similar amount in Oblivion. I lost track of how many replays I've done of Fo3 and even FNV. Fo4 is by a huge margin Bethesda's most limited game. No amount of linear content can fix that. Fallout 4, despite its many easter eggs and small substories in terminals, just doesn't bring that satisfying feeling of exploring and finding something unknown. Not like their previous games. I really hope ES6 will make up for that.

[afa]

The binary karma system is problematic in games because in order to get the "most" out of it the player is urge to pick a side and stick with it. Giving an incentive for the neutral option on the other hand either dilute the system or becomes an additional check box to fill.

 

People should stop playing new games and just stick to what they liked, maybe they can come back in 5 to 10 years and check it out again once the cycle loops around. Assuming the nuclear holocaust doesn't take us all, but perhaps that might actually be the best outcome.

[DocClox]

My point is that Bethesda with Fo4's new approach severely hurt its potential for replayability. Over the years I put around 2500 hours in Skyrim. A very similar amount in Oblivion. I lost track of how many replays I've done of Fo3 and even FNV. Fo4 is by a huge margin Bethesda's most limited game. No amount of linear content can fix that. Fallout 4, despite its many easter eggs and small substories in terminals, just doesn't bring that satisfying feeling of exploring and finding something unknown. Not like their previous games.

 

This. Exactly this.

 

 

 

No doubt, the scripts of Fallout 3 and 4 were written by adults, the one of Skyrim, however, could have been the product of a thirteen year old if... if Alduin weren't the PC's alter ego one has to overcome first. But that only a few players have ever realized.

Me too, I think. Would it be rude of me to say I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here?

 

Of course not, I didn't expect something else.

 

Good good. I was worried I might have missed something important.

[zzz72w3r]

To say that an RPG should be about story/world unfolding to your character's choices is more a tradition of Western game development. 

 

In JRPG and the very closely related CRPG there isn't much variation in choices over the main narrative, the role-playing part is usually about how your character evolve over the same story.  Fighting mechanics and loots are more important in Asia.  It's a main reason that MMORPG is much more popular there. 

 

It's a culture thing but both are still RPG.  There are many ways to role-play.

 

[Jazzman]

 

 

 

No doubt, the scripts of Fallout 3 and 4 were written by adults, the one of Skyrim, however, could have been the product of a thirteen year old if... if Alduin weren't the PC's alter ego one has to overcome first. But that only a few players have ever realized.

Me too, I think. Would it be rude of me to say I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here?

 

Of course not, I didn't expect something else.

 

Good good. I was worried I might have missed something important.

 

Depends, but it is hard to fill a cup that is already full. So yeah yeah, whateva.

[BoozeJunky]

In JRPG and the very closely related CRPG there isn't much variation in choices over the main narrative

 

Part of the issue is that (I, at least) don't find Bethesda's stories to be particularly well told or engaging. Morrowind I quite liked, but Oblivion, FO3, Skyrim, and FO4 have all been lacking severely. Partly this is due to pacing issues, as their ES/FO games since Morrowind have attempted to keep a tight pace with a linear storyline. This doesn't work well in a world where you can go anywhere, and do anything. It's silly to be able to leave NPCs waiting at a rendezvous point for three months while you bugger off and become King of the futzing around Guild. Then come back, and they act as if you just rode there at top speed. I guess even Morrowind technically had this problem, but quests were paced so that you weren't engaged in them until you actively chose to select them. Major NPCs would actively tell you to go fuck off and join a guild, learn about the world, get involved in politics, or go sling skooma while they worked out what to do next, or researched some esoteric text. Those break points were important, precisely because it gave you the chance to go out and DO the side missions and exploration.

 

A second problem, which has hit Fallout 4 especially hard, is that the reliance on proceedurally generated loot/dungeons/NPCs/etc has killed a major component of what was once one of Bethesda's greatest strengths... their environmental storytelling. It used to be that each item, each decal, each arrangement of items told a story you could infer about what happened before you got there. Even the types of quests themselves told stories, or provided background information on the areas you were visiting. Now... now you're defending generic settlement X from generic raider enemy Y, sending you clear to the other side of the map to clear a generic dungeon Z - when all the while, the settlement is literally surrounded by more prescient threats (like a Super Mutant encampment) that can literally be seen just over the shoulder of the NPC giving you the quest. 

 

This is a much worse problem in FO4, because the new settlement system relied on the player to build their own towns (out of a limited selection of generic parts, and filled with generic NPCs) - it left little room for established towns, with plot significance, unique npcs, their own quest branches, and local flair. Dumb as some of them were... there are no more Arefus, Novacs, Republics of Daves, Goodsprings, Megatons, or Primms. There's no more ex-settlements that told a story either. No more Georgetowns, or Niptons or Greyditches or Bonnie Springs. Or at least, there's far less of them, making the world feel sterile and bland. There's just Diamond City, Good Neighbor, and Bunker Hill.. which itself is little more than a trading post than any kind of settlement.

 

So yeah, I'd say Bethesda lost their edge, because they lost the one thing that they were really good at. Creating a sandbox that was WORTH exploring and customizing. And it was sacrificed upon the altar of procreedurally generated filler.

[DocClox]

Depends, but it is hard to fill a cup that is already full. So yeah yeah, whateva.

Fair enough. How did you put last time? "Thank you for the interesting conversation".

[Magicballs]

... Going back to topic, I would say that yes, Bethesda has definitely lost their edge.

 

Don't get me wrong, fallout 4 is a good, solid game, and actually much more stable (looking at you excessive-amount-of-random-crashes in oblivion and skyrim, even in vanilla!) product than previous installments in the past decade or so.

 

However, as much as I can say Oblivion annoyed me, it did guilds and questing *RIGHT.* A system where you would rise up the echelons and actually *check your progress* on the *guilds* tab really made the whole thing seem more lucid to me. Combat was lame though obviously, but hey, it's a game that's almost/about ten years old now so I'll give it a break.

 

 

 

The one thing that really annoys me about Fallout 4 is the *incredibly weak* storyline. Okay, so you create your perfect couple out of two people who have introduced themselves to you by staring at you in a faux mirror as you edit their faces. Quite cool, but the game literally tries to set the scene for ten minutes rather flatly and, unlike It's predecessor, fails rather poorly in my opinion.

 

Fallout 3 had *at least* half an hour of prologue to properly set the scene for your 'Lone wanderer' hero, and why you feel that it is your *actual duty* to go out into the wasteland in search of your character's father.

 

Meanwhile, Fallout 4: do a load of random sh*t in a house that is "yours", with a husband that is "yours" and a baby + robot that is "yours", with no other exposition than that. Compared to the prologues of Fallout 3, and Fallout NV, I can't help but feel underwhelmed. 

 

In Fallout 3 you are literally *born* into the world and in Fallout NV you survive a gun shot wound to the head.

 

Meanwhile, in Fallout 4 again: You're just some bod from the past who was *incredibly lucky* and managed to avoid being killed in a power shortage when your cryogenic stasis chamber facility was no longer running effectively. The snippets of the time before were *very nice,* but for me, that little snippet just wasn't enough for me to feel like I had a real obligation to search for my son..

 

'Oh hey, Kellog(s).. What? My son is alive? He's doing okay? Oh.. Well don't really feel like I need to find him now, Cheers Pal!' *BLAM*

 

The followers were definitely more defined than previous installments by Bethesda, but beyond that, everything else just falls a little flat somewhat IMO.

 

And don't get me started on that compass conversation crap!

 

Here's hoping I'm not the only one who feels this way!

 

[DocClox]

To say that an RPG should be about story/world unfolding to your character's choices is more a tradition of Western game development.

I don't know. The cRPG/jRPG format was an early imitation of the pencil and paper games like D&D. They called it "role playing" not because it had any role-playing content, but because the games had swords and spells and monsters and levels like actual role-playing games. Of course, back in the days of Windows 95 that was pretty amazing and we were all glad to have it, so we didn't really care about linearity and pre-made characters.

 

These days though, I think the bar for what is a RPG needs be set a little higher than that. Things have moved on since the 90s and I don't really think we can excuse the sorry mess that is Fallout 4 by pointing out that some companies still make games where the "role playing" is limited to choosing which attacks your party uses from one round to the next.