Has Beth lost its edge on RPG gaming?

[GrimReaper]

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...

 

A blank slate character usually falls into the pit of being a deus ex machina, a mere window for the player to see through and interact with the world. Starting off as a tribal is seemingly much more limiting than you make it out to be: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Chosen_One

 

The game just doesn't give much attention to your origin as soon as you leave the tribe. The ability to abandon the main quest to pursuit side quests and missions is something you can do in almost any RPG, no matter how nonsensical this may be (hello, Dragon Age). Yes, even Fallout 4 gives you this kind of freedom. Most RPGs offer you no consequences for temporarily abandoning the main story, making it a moot point for role-playing purposes. You are still going to blow up the enclave, no matter if you become a pornstar or not. You can't really say 'fuck all this shit, I'm gonna live my life how I want now'.

 

There are few games that do blank slate characters right, one of them being Mount & Blade, because the world doesn't really give a shit about you until you reach a point where it does because you've become too powerful for the world to not recognize you. Until then, what you do in the game defines who you are. There are limited options on what to do in this game, but each and every one defines your character. You can loot villages, sell prisoners to slavers or complete quests for villages and cities. Most of the time you do what promises the most rewards with the least amount of drawbacks, just like any sane person would do. You don't raid villages because you're evil, you raid villages because you're starved for money or you are literally just starving. Every decision you make is based on something that happens naturally in this game, and not because the game forces you to decide between evil for the sake of being evil or being good for the sake of being good.

 

And FO4 is the only game next to FNV in the series where you are not the chosen one or anyone important. You don't save the world in the end and chosing a faction is much more satisfying than simply beating up the bad guy in the end.

[afa]

Again the genre of RPG is impossible to really define now a days, and each facet of it seems to have their own strength and weaknesses.

If you want to just make a bunch of choices and see them play out maybe you should look into Telltale's games instead.

If you want to put your imagination at work, well at what point is it not better to just take some drugs and get really high and make everything up in your mind instead.

[bjornk]

The ability to abandon the main quest to pursuit side quests and missions is something you can do in almost any RPG, no matter how nonsensical this may be (hello, Dragon Age).

Which Dragon Age? Because Dragon Age Origins is probably one of the worst examples you could pick. After completing a few location based side quests, there's literally nothing to do in the game unless you follow the main quest. You can only prioritize where to go first. You can't just wander around and kill things. (Also, temporarily abandoning the main quest and doing side quests are not the same thing as playing the game as "sandbox").

 

Yes, even Fallout 4 gives you this kind of freedom.

While it's technically possible, it doesn't make much sense considering what the story is all about, unlike FO2.

 

Most RPGs offer you no consequences for temporarily abandoning the main story, making it a moot point for role-playing purposes. You are still going to blow up the enclave, no matter if you become a pornstar or not. You can't really say 'fuck all this shit, I'm gonna live my life how I want now'.

You can permanently abandon the main quest in FO2 and continue playing the game. You can also continue playing the game after saving Arroyo. Of course, after completing all possible quests there's not much left to do other than travelling around and killing things, like Bethesda games. It's not designed as a true sandbox game with a living world and dynamically generated content. Neither are Bethesda games.

 

There are few games that do blank slate characters right, one of them being Mount & Blade

Yes, games like M&B, Kenshi etc. are good examples.

 

And FO4 is the only game next to FNV in the series where you are not the chosen one or anyone important.

In both FNV and FO4 your character is important for the story, not for the world, and that's not at all different than FO2. Also, didn't you just say...

The game just doesn't give much attention to your origin as soon as you leave the tribe.

about FO2?

 

 

Again the genre of RPG is impossible to really define now a days, and each facet of it seems to have their own strength and weaknesses.

I don't think the idea of role-playing vastly differs in people's minds. Perhaps it'd better if we define what the "ultimate role-playing experience" is and then talk about how far we are from achieving that, instead of just trying to define what a RPG is.

 

I suppose the most basic role-playing is the one happens in your mind while daydreaming or reading a book etc. Say, while reading Tolkien and you imagine yourself as someone living in that world and think "what if I was Bilbo, what would I do/say in that situation?". I think of RPGs as a means to get that experience, as real as possible.

[DocClox]

The game just doesn't give much attention to your origin as soon as you leave the tribe. The ability to abandon the main quest to pursuit side quests and missions is something you can do in almost any RPG, no matter how nonsensical this may be (hello, Dragon Age). Yes, even Fallout 4 gives you this kind of freedom.

It's not a question of ability, it's a question of support.

 

Does the game say "well, as long as you're having fun, you do what you like", or does it go "No! No! You're not following the plot! You're supposed to be looking for the kid! You're supposed to care! You're supposed to feel bad about it! YOU'RE A GREAT BIG STUPID HEAD AND YOU'RE GOING TO RUIN EVERYTHING!!!"

 

Because that's the difference between FO2 and FO4 as I see it.

[Kendo 2]

 

I don't think the idea of role-playing vastly differs in people's minds. Perhaps it'd better if we define what the "ultimate role-playing experience" is and then talk about how far we are from achieving that, instead of just trying to define what a RPG is.

 

I suppose the most basic role-playing is the one happens in your mind while daydreaming or reading a book etc. Say, while reading Tolkien and you imagine yourself as someone living in that world and think "what if I was Bilbo, what would I do/say in that situation?". I think of RPGs as a means to get that experience, as real as possible.

To me it seems FO4 is indeed a literal ‘role playing game’.  You’re given the part of the grieving spouse and parent and ideally you are supposed top do something about it.  The entire game is written around that part of the screen play and there is little room for improvisation, even to the point where your dialogue choices don’t matter.  Regardless to the option picked the results are the same.

 

Looking at Mass Effect and Shepard, choosing to be a Renegade or a Paragon will affect NPC dialogue and give the player more options.  Some NPCs don’t like Renegades and their dialogue reflects it.  The same is true for Paragon.  In essence, the NPCs will treat you differently and that affects game play.  Your choices matter.

 

For Witcher3 there are definite consequences for your actions.  Due to the scope of the game it is hard to keep track of what you said to whom.  Playing Geralt as a greedy dick head differs greatly than playing him as an altruistic professional monster slayer.  Both paths can come back to haunt you with varying degrees.  There is too much depth in Witcher3 for me to describe how interactions affect your game experience.

 

These three games have voiced protagonists so it is evident having a player character who talks doesn’t by virtue limit role playing; FO4 just happens to be the most linear and restrictive.  Instead of being able to role play with your free-wheeling avatar, you’re ‘Mom’ or ‘Dad’ with little attention to the finer details.  Previous Bethesda titles allowed for a fair amount of freedom as does Witcher3.  I like Mass Effect even though I consider it somewhat restrictive, but I can still make dialogue choices and craft Shepard’s personality.  FO4 doesn’t allow for that since the ‘sarcastic’ response yields the same result as an innocuous ‘yes’.  I put 99 hrs into FO4 and I didn't get to Kendo 2 'role pay' one time; I was playing a role someone else created.

[bjornk]

 

The game just doesn't give much attention to your origin as soon as you leave the tribe. The ability to abandon the main quest to pursuit side quests and missions is something you can do in almost any RPG, no matter how nonsensical this may be (hello, Dragon Age). Yes, even Fallout 4 gives you this kind of freedom.

It's not a question of ability, it's a question of support.

 

Does the game say "well, as long as you're having fun, you do what you like", or does it go "No! No! You're not following the plot! You're supposed to be looking for the kid! You're supposed to care! You're supposed to feel bad about it! YOU'RE A GREAT BIG STUPID HEAD AND YOU'RE GOING TO RUIN EVERYTHING!!!"

 

Because that's the difference between FO2 and FO4 as I see it.

 

Well, to be fair, there are a few nagging Arroyo dream sequences keep reminding you your quest, but you can most certainly ignore them. There's no time limit or anything on the main quest (unlike FO1).

[DocClox]

 

It's not a question of ability, it's a question of support.

 

Does the game say "well, as long as you're having fun, you do what you like", or does it go "No! No! You're not following the plot! You're supposed to be looking for the kid! You're supposed to care! You're supposed to feel bad about it! YOU'RE A GREAT BIG STUPID HEAD AND YOU'RE GOING TO RUIN EVERYTHING!!!"

 

Because that's the difference between FO2 and FO4 as I see it.

 

Well, to be fair, there are a few nagging Arroyo dream sequences keep reminding you your quest, but you can most certainly ignore them. There's no time limit or anything on the main quest (unlike FO1).

 

 

Is there not a time limit? I can remember getting back and finding everyone dead, but that might just be because the Enclave killed them all. It's been a while since I played that one.

 

I can remember a couple of Grampy Bone's sendings reminding you about your task, but they never do anything like hijack your character's voice to say "They took my son, but I SHALL FIND HIM, for I am THE SINGLE PARENT! Let evildoers beware!!". Or have all the options in a conversation turn out to be about the main plot no matter how carefully you're tying to avoid it, or any of that sort of crap. Just two short cutscenes.

 

Again, I think it's a matter of degree it's a matter of degree rather than an absolute measure.

[bjornk]

Is there not a time limit? I can remember getting back and finding everyone dead, but that might just be because the Enclave killed them all. It's been a while since I played that one.

Actually, you're right, yes, there is a time limit, though not on the main quest but on what you'll find or what you can do in Arroyo, as indicated by Hakunin dream sequences, IIRC. But if you don't plan to return Arroyo, at least not until you find the GECK, then that time limit doesn't really change anything, because even if you bring back the GECK on day 2, you'll still find the dying Hakunin and Arroyo will become inaccessible. In other words, it's impossible to bring the GECK to Arroyo without dealing with the Enclave.

 

During the game you'll see four Hakunin dream sequences, which will befall you on 23 Oct 2241, 21 Jan 2242, 21 Apr 2242 and 20 Jul 2242. When you leave Vault 13 after getting the xp for finding it (no matter if you got the G.E.C.K. or even talked to the deathclaws), or leave San Francisco after getting the tanker ready to go, you'll always jump ahead to the fourth sequence ("the village dies"). As time passes the garden and fields will go empty and people will become generally despairing. After 90 days, which corresponds to the first Hakunin dream sequence, you will be unable to get (or to finish, if you already got them) quests 1, 3 and 4, and Hakunin won't give you healing or make Healing Powder any more. After 91 days you'll be unable to get the Water Flask and cash from the Elder.

 

If you return to Arroyo after seeing the fourth Hakunin dream sequence, the bridge will be destroyed and the village inaccessible. A dying Hakunin will greet you with a story of how the villagers were taken south in vertibirds, and Navarro appears on your world map. You don't have to return here and whether you do or not has basically no effect on the rest of the game.

And then there's also a hardcoded 13 year time limit as well (forgot about that): 

The game will end after 13 years of game time (which would correspond to 25 Jul 2254). This event will be marked by a slightly animated screen saying "the end". Even if you play a "go everywhere, do everything" kind of game, you should only use up 3-4 years at the most, and even if you want to walk around the wasteland levelling up endlessly from mindless random encounters, you should be fed up before 13 years have elapsed.

 

 

I can remember a couple of Grampy Bone's sendings reminding you about your task, but they never do anything like hijack your character's voice to say "They took my son, but I SHALL FIND HIM, for I am THE SINGLE PARENT! Let evildoers beware!!". Or have all the options in a conversation turn out to be about the main plot no matter how carefully you're tying to avoid it, or any of that sort of crap. Just two short cutscenes.

Ugh! No, that doesn't happen in FO2.

[afa]

The gulf between RPGs is wide, the linear as fuck JRPG, open world glitchfest of TES/FO, then there's Bioware stuff, the new hotness that is Witcher seems like an extension of that, then there's also ARPG, TRPG, and the grindfest time/money sink that is MMO.

Personally the best experience I had with these are JRPGs when they work, but when they don't work it is really REALLY bad, and the good ones normally don't have much in terms of choices or imagining of your character, but rather the characters and story just work together as they unfold.

 

The so called ultimate RPG experience can not really exist, and it definitely can't cater to everyone. The whole use your imagination to fill in the gap or "what would this character to" is a technically flawed concept and asking a player's input could be a disaster. No game can provides enough choices to satisfy everyone, player filling in the gap is a compromise at best a cop out/laziness at worst. Not to mention there's really no true choices, only multiple predetermined path. And we still haven't even talk about the baggage and interests each player brings with them.

After a while it isn't about playing the game it is about seeing how the gears turn and how to manipulate it. Hence having choices for choices sake.

 

At some point if the "best" story is the one in a player's head, then why even play anything. Taking it a bit further putting that particular story in your head into an actual game will likely yield similar result, a third of the people will like it, a third of it doesn't care, and the last third will hate it.

Video games are silly!

[bjornk]

To me it seems FO4 is indeed a literal ‘role playing game’.  You’re given the part of the grieving spouse and parent and ideally you are supposed top do something about it.  The entire game is written around that part of the screen play and there is little room for improvisation, even to the point where your dialogue choices don’t matter.  Regardless to the option picked the results are the same.

To be fair, after having seen "Uncharted 4", I'd take FO4 as a "game" any day, and that should tell you about the direction where computer games are going. Sad really...

[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.

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.

 

 

I would not say cRPG and jRPG started as imitations of D&D.  Sure all these games have computerized versions of dice throws in their ancestry but paper-rock-scissor exist long before those crazy D&D dices.  Most early Japanese and Chinese RPG game developers have never even heard of D&D.

 

How jRPG unfolds always adheres to established Japanese manga formulae and cRPG has always strive to replicate the worlds from Chinese martial arts novels.  Both predate Tolkien and are rooted in cultures different from the Western tradition.

 

If we have to put them into a box cRPG/jRPG lean more toward action/adventure RPG than "pure" RPG that is of the D&D tradition.   

 

action = fighting/party mechanics

adventure = discovery/puzzle/loot

"pure" = branching stories

 

RPG is using one or more of the above tools to allow the player to have some influence of how the narrative unfolds.  Branching stories is not necessarily a requirement.  A linear story with simple fighting mechanics can still be an amazing RPG experience if it has a great party system offering choices of interesting characters, i.e. Mass Effect without the bullshit choose your destiny mechanics.

 

jRPG and cRPG have been lacking not because their tradition is a poor imitation but mostly due to lack of capital and poor craftsmanship.

[DocClox]

I would not say cRPG and jRPG started as imitations of D&D.  Sure all these games have computerized versions of dice throws in their ancestry but paper-rock-scissor exist long before those crazy D&D dices.  Most early Japanese and Chinese RPG game developers have never even heard of D&D.

 

 

 

Well, put it this way. Role Playing Games as a concept originated with D&D, Tunnels and Trolls and all the rest of the games from the late 70s/early 80s. That was pretty much before we had home computers, much less ones that could handle an RPG type game. So it seems fairly clear that the name has its origins in the pencil and paper games.

 

That's not to say that the Asian cRPGs didn't give the formula its own spin. None of the early cRPGs were much like D&D because D&D is a hideously complex mass of special cases and arbitrary rules-of-thumb; you just couldn't sanely do that on the hardware of the time. But the early cRPGs did pick up on elements of the pencil-and-paper games. Levels, hit points, to-hit rolls. It was close enough for the name to stick.

 

As for the setting ... early D&D was always setting-agnostic. The game wasn't about a place or a culture, it was a set of rules to let you build your own world. That changed in later years when the publishers realised it was going to be easier to sell big expensive sourcebooks for new settings than it was to keep selling big expensive rulebooks to people who already had them.

 

But like I say, there was also Tunnel and Trolls, Traveler, Chivalry and Sorcery, Bushido, Runequest and a dozen others to draw on, all pretty much predating the computer form.

 

jRPG and cRPG have been lacking not because their tradition is a poor imitation but mostly due to lack of capital and poor craftsmanship.

I don't want to do down jRPGs - I've enjoyed playing a number of them. But they do tend to be a hybrid of small scale tactics and visual novel. Any actual role playing (in the strictest sense of the term) is usually limited to how strongly you can identify with the pre-made main character. No disrespect to the genre is intended, but that's not what I look for in a Bethesda game.

[afa]

If you are going to put D&D as the bases of RPGs, then all single player games are out.

[DocClox]

If you are going to put D&D as the bases of RPGs, then all single player games are out.

 

You're right - they all have at least two players. It's just that the computer takes the role of one of the players - the DM. So you can have role-playing with only one human player.

 

That was a big part of the attraction of cRPGs, to my mind.

[GrimReaper]

Not gonna do the quote war, sorry.

 

Which Dragon Age? Because Dragon Age Origins is probably one of the worst examples you could pick. After completing a few location based side quests, there's literally nothing to do in the game unless you follow the main quest. You can only prioritize where to go first. You can't just wander around and kill things. (Also, temporarily abandoning the main quest and doing side quests are not the same thing as playing the game as "sandbox").

 

 

While it's technically possible, it doesn't make much sense considering what the story is all about, unlike FO2.
 

 

You can permanently abandon the main quest in FO2 and continue playing the game. You can also continue playing the game after saving Arroyo. Of course, after completing all possible quests there's not much left to do other than travelling around and killing things, like Bethesda games. It's not designed as a true sandbox game with a living world and dynamically generated content. Neither are Bethesda games.
 

 
In both FNV and FO4 your character is important for the story, not for the world, and that's not at all different than FO2. Also, didn't you just say...

The game just doesn't give much attention to your origin as soon as you leave the tribe.

about FO2?

 

 

Doesn't matter which Dragon Age because the ability to pick flowers and beat up wolves while the impending doom hovers over your head doesn't make much sense in any RPG. The whole side quest thing is a metagame concept, you know you are playing a game thus the enemy that threatens to destroy the world will wait patiently until you have collected enough flowers, loot and xp. That is why abandoning the main quest in search for other stuff to do is not something you can role-play, because it has zero consequences for you or the game world. You can become a porn star in FO2 but if you are one or not has no impact. It's something the player decides and not what the player character would do, considering what is at stake in many RPGs.

 

FO2 doesn't give much attention to your origin because the main story is about the Enclave, not about Arroyo and the GECK. You being part of a primitive tribe should've been a much larger impact because being a tribal is kinda a big deal. FO2 is simply being inconsequential, that's all. Like almost all games.

 

 

 

It's not a question of ability, it's a question of support.

 

Does the game say "well, as long as you're having fun, you do what you like", or does it go "No! No! You're not following the plot! You're supposed to be looking for the kid! You're supposed to care! You're supposed to feel bad about it! YOU'RE A GREAT BIG STUPID HEAD AND YOU'RE GOING TO RUIN EVERYTHING!!!"

 

Because that's the difference between FO2 and FO4 as I see it.

 

Have you played the game? How is FO4 forcing the search for your kid on you when in the first few minutes after leaving the vault you are already blowing up raiders with a minigun and powerarmor while battling it out with a deathclaw? It's much more schizophrenic than FO2 in that regard, to be honest. I don't understand how FO2's life as a 20 year old tribal is somehow less limiting than simply being a parent in FO4.

[sirsnapsalot]

I'm not really sure, to be honest.
A lot of people say they have lost the edge, a lot of people said they never had one to begin with.
I really want to give my thoughts on Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. Not that anyone cares, but I'm gonna anyway.

The first Bethesda game  I played was Oblivion on the Xbox 360.  So for quite some time I had the game without mods, and eventually got it on PC and learned how to mod and stuff.
I feel like because it was my first game, I have red tinted glasses on but...I still think it was more immersive than Skyrim. The world felt quite alive to me, and I actually did feel like the side quests did actually have impacts on the game itself. There's a bunch of NPCs I remember really well from Oblivion, and while I can't think of their names from the top of my head because it's been many years since I've played Oblivion; I still remember their quirks and the jokes the community came up for them (EG: The Adoring fan, that one asshole Khajjit in The Drk.Bh.).

I tried Morrowind while waiting for Skyrim, and I thought it was pretty good. A lot of reading though, and I often got very lost in the game. I didn't realize you were supposed to read the journal and dialogues in depth to have an idea of where you were going. I loved how indepth the skills and stuff were, that was some really intense shit!
The combat system made me want to pull all of my teeth out. Hitting someone visually but then having the game do an RNG roll for both the chance of you hitting them and how much damage you did (At least, that's how I remember it working? I'm not sure.) was so frustrating to me.
Morrowind in the short time I played it already had me impressed with NPCS , especially that one NPC who just falls out of the sky and face plants the ground,  thanks to a really experimental spell he made...That you can use too...Only to have the exact same thing happen to you. That's bloody memorable!

Skyrim...Eh.
When it first came out, I thought it was amazing. Though in retrospect, I think it's the most..."MEH." of them all.
None of the NPCs are really memorable, save for the ones that go out of their way to really annoy the player (EG: Nazeem, Braith, Idolaf Battleborn, Ancano).
The quests didn't really feel like they changed much, and I felt like the factions were extremely unsatisfying (Especially the Mages' guild), save for the Dark Brotherhood because you got to make a new sanctuary and stuff.
The main story felt really lack luster to me.  The DLCs don't really feel much better to me either.

Morrowind was INSANE,  when people describe it to me it just sounds like a vivid and badass fever dream.
Oblivion ended with you witnessing titan and a freakin' dragon fighting UP CLOSE, and then a statue of you got erected in a town, while you simultaneously became one of the most important individuals in Cyrodil.
Skyrim? Well the only thing I really remember is that you go to the Nirn equivalent of Valhalla, ride a dragon at some point, beat Alduin in a pretty boring fight...And I can't remember if anything else happened after that.

I dunno, I just feel like Bethesda stopped really caring about the RPG part of the RPG/Action thing they got going on after Oblivion and Fallout 3.
Skyrim even with mods is extremely hard for me to get immersed in, and there's very little in the game that I find memorable when compared to Oblivion and Morrowind (Even though I only played that for a little while.).


TL;DR
I feel like Bethesda lost the RPG-edge after Morrowind and Oblivion, especially in terms of immersion.

[DocClox]

Have you played the game?

I'm so glad we could have this discussion on a grown up and adult level.

 

How is FO4 forcing the search for your kid on you when in the first few minutes after leaving the vault you are already blowing up raiders with a minigun and powerarmor while battling it out with a deathclaw?

That would be the bit in-between the bit where Coddsworth hijacks all four conversation choices to make you talk about the brat whether you want to or not, and the bit where Mama Murphy reveals that her psychic junkie hallucinations have granted her mystic knowledge of your personal tragedy, which she's going insist you talk about or the quest won't advance.

 

It's much more schizophrenic than FO2 in that regard, to be honest. I don't understand how FO2's life as a 20 year old tribal is somehow less limiting than simply being a parent in FO4.

Well, for me, I guess a big part of it is that the tribal kid has yet to choose a career, get married, have children, buy a house, make a speech to a local veterans group or any of those sort of character defining things. If the game keeps telling you that your character is an early-thirties pre-war lady lawyer and a recently widowed single mum, it's going to be problematic if you want to play someone who doesn't share all of those qualities.

[Outlaw1Vagabond]

As a parent, I guess it hit me somewhat on a personal level, upon release my son was about the same age as Shaun. I was able to truly put myself in the sole survivors situation, and fuck I got to the institute in no time lol. That being said, I do prefer the gunplay in FO4, but I feel that it somewhats lacks the overall, i suppose gritty feel of New Vegas or FO3. I'm torn being loving this game and being disappointed. I do know this, the DLC has been shit

[ExecutorBill]

I dunno, I just feel like Bethesda stopped really caring about the RPG part of the RPG/Action thing they got going on after Oblivion and Fallout 3.

Skyrim even with mods is extremely hard for me to get immersed in, and there's very little in the game that I find memorable when compared to Oblivion and Morrowind (Even though I only played that for a little while.).

 

 

TL;DR

I feel like Bethesda lost the RPG-edge after Morrowind and Oblivion, especially in terms of immersion.

 

I have to agree here. Though Oblivion was my first entry into the series, it felt more alive than Skyrim did.

 

In particular, the NPCs in Oblivion can talk to each other about a wide array of subjects. Though it was initially a bit off-putting due to the wonky and sometimes disjointed way conversations could go, I felt that it was neat that NPCs could at least give the illusion of talking with each other about day to day events. The NPC conversations in Skyrim are pretty much scripted events with the same dialogue taking place every time the NPCs talk to each other, and custom NPCs can't interact with each other unless there's a mod specifically programmed for it.

 

There's nothing that feels so empty as a huge custom player house where 10-15 different NPCs don't even give each other the time of day, save for a bugged conversation that's supposed to take place in the Bard's College. In Oblivion, guards and vendors would talk to each other about the various events going on in the world and about all sorts of stuff like mudcrabs and goblins.

 

This is somewhat better in FO4 as I've heard settlers talking to each other about different subjects, but it still doesn't really capture the feeling that Oblivion had. I kinda wish that Bethesda would try and revisit the NPC interaction system and try and spruce it up.

[bjornk]

Doesn't matter which Dragon Age because the ability to pick flowers and beat up wolves while the impending doom hovers over your head doesn't make much sense in any RPG. The whole side quest thing is a metagame concept, you know you are playing a game thus the enemy that threatens to destroy the world will wait patiently until you have collected enough flowers, loot and xp. That is why abandoning the main quest in search for other stuff to do is not something you can role-play, because it has zero consequences for you or the game world. You can become a porn star in FO2 but if you are one or not has no impact. It's something the player decides and not what the player character would do, considering what is at stake in many RPGs.

 

FO2 doesn't give much attention to your origin because the main story is about the Enclave, not about Arroyo and the GECK. You being part of a primitive tribe should've been a much larger impact because being a tribal is kinda a big deal. FO2 is simply being inconsequential, that's all. Like almost all games.

I don't think you understand why I gave that "pornstar" example. I'm talking about the support, or rather the "freedom" for sandbox gameplay in these games. By sandbox gameplay, I mean "doing your own thing" right from the very start (with the character you created from scratch), like you do in true sandbox RPGs, like Mount & Blade or Kenshi.

 

In almost all other RPGs, which weren't designed as sandbox, you are given a situation, which may be a personal problem, may be a problem affecting the game world, or at least some part of it, and you are the "chosen one" to deal with it. This is the case for every Fallout or Dragon Age title. This is the "intended way" of playing these games. You are expected to be this heroic character and fix these issues, whatever they are. Now, the question is, is it possible (at least to an extend) to avoid all that and do your own thing in the game right from the start, like you do in true sandbox games?

 

Let's think about Dragon Age Origins. Is it possible to not become a Grey Warden, not learn about the Blight at all and do your own thing in the game right from the start? That's absolutely NOT possible, as that game is linear as fuck. That's why it's one of the worst examples you could pick. What about FO2? It certainly is possible, even though the game doesn't fully support it. You can pretend to be a not so heroic tribal, who's only interested in saving his own ass, who can easily be corrupted (like Kaga), who's fed up with these tribal ways of living, and doesn't care about the tribe one bit, especially after they sent him to his death in that temple. He doesn't know about the Enclave, even if he did, he wouldn't care, like the rest of the people in the game world. Is it not possible to play the game with such a character? It's absolutely possible and that's exactly what I've been doing for the last couple of months.

 

I suppose it's also possible to play FNV like this, at least to an extend but I don't know about FO4. Thing is, if all other quests you can do in the game are somehow tied or related to the main quest in one way or another, it would be difficult to play the game as a sandbox no matter how hard you pretend that you are not a traumatized parent. From what people have said, that's probably the case for FO4.

 

Skyrim, especially with the Alternate Start mod, is a lot better than FNV in terms of sandbox gameplay. In vanilla game, it's also possible to avoid the MQ by not talking to Balgruuf, which means that you'll never know that you are a dragonborn. You can play at least more than half of it as a sandbox game being a random person in Skyrim, without any problem. It almost never tells you that "you're the DB and so you should do DB things" when you do that.

 

 

How is FO4 forcing the search for your kid on you when in the first few minutes after leaving the vault you are already blowing up raiders with a minigun and powerarmor while battling it out with a deathclaw?

 

I don't understand how FO2's life as a 20 year old tribal is somehow less limiting than simply being a parent in FO4.

Don't know how or why you can't see that, but the answer is actually very simple. FO2 doesn't attempt to define your character's personality (neither does FNV or Skyrim), it just gives you a basic background and a quest. FO4, however, clearly and explicitly indicates that you are parent who is traumatized by the death of his spouse and kidnapping of his son. Now, you, as the player, can pretend that your character couldn't cope with all that and is now fucked up in the head. Now, all he wants is to play 50's music and blow things up, shoot Deathclaws with miniguns... or just build settlements for dumbass NPCs etc. This is quite possibly the only way you, as your character, can justify not searching for your son. However, from what I understand, the game doesn't even allow you do that, like it doesn't allow you to be an evil character either. In other words, FO4 feels much more limiting in terms of sandbox gameplay.

[bjornk]

To be honest, I don't think an "evil" character would search for a brat.

 

 

In fact, my evil female char would probably say, "No husband, no son... well... good riddance!"

 

[Captain Cobra]

Only if they wanted to sell him to slavers.

[bjornk]

Well all is not lost for those who dislike the story, there is a "Alternate Start" mod on the nexus. 

 

I wonder if you take out absolutely everything related to "must find my son" thing from FO4, how much of the game would remain. This isn't much of a concern for Skyrim, because it already has a lot of content for non-DB characters.

[Jazzman]

 

Well all is not lost for those who dislike the story, there is a "Alternate Start" mod on the nexus.

 

I wonder if you take out absolutely everything related to "must find my son" thing from FO4, how much of the game would remain. This isn't much of a concern for Skyrim, because it already has a lot of content for non-DB characters.

 

Your frustration is already a character trait, huh? Take away that 'must overcome Alduin' thing from Skyrim and you can play with the to be delivered war axe until a Valkyrie has mercy and picks you up as a chosen one for the trip to 'the hall of those who do rant'... Ranthalla 

[chestcraft]

I rather overcome alduin then go on a quest to find a baby. Especially when I dont have to play the damn game to know im never getting him back and then "gifted" with a crap ending with my dying grandpa son. Luckly with the help of mods and the survival update, ive immersed myself into just surviving and scavenging and such while i waltz past the story at least making for a enjoyable time. Without that its just eeeh...Nothing is really interesting me as much as any past Bethesda game. Still, im enjoying it now. Just not as much as I was hoping for.