Playing Fallout 4 and going back to New Vegas you realize how much Fallout 4 didn't really focus on the RPG elements as previous ones. I think Fallout 4 is a great game and all but it feels like Bethesda focus too much on shooter mechanics than what made the franchise great in the first place.

Question is do you believe that Fallout 4 is lacking/dumb down RPG compared to past games like Fallout New Vegas?

Not really no

No, I just feel like they are focusing on different kinds of RPG elements then NV did.

Oh boy.

FO4 feels simplified. granted havent played NV in a long while but its different elements but very detailed for an RPG still.

If your clinging to the archaic way RPGs used to be done and refuse to ever accept change, then sure, I suppose it's not much of one. Ofcourse going by ghat unchanging archaic meaning NV isn't much of 1 either.


To everyone else though there's plenty of RPG quality to Fallout 4.


As for myself, I only played NV for barely 40 hours without all that much enjoyment. I've already played 4 for hundreds of hours and have been having a blast. I forsee hundreds if not thousands more hours of potential hours left in this game.

Fallout 4 focused on the "PC is its own character that the player can influence" a la classic JRPGs and the Mass Effect and Witcher series. In this case, Nate/Nora lay somewhere between Commander Shepard and Geralt.


I think most of the people who want to claim that Fallout 4 is a non-RPG just dislike the fact of having a semi-predefined character when before, the PC was almost as blank of a slate as possible. Because of this, you are limited in the choices you can make (as there are certain choices that would be out-of-character for Nate/Nora on the situation). Hence the backlash.


I think the biggest problem in the above situation was that the PC wasn't defined enough. We have too little knowledge on who they are so we can understand why they won't make certain choices under certain circumstances.

FNV had more dynamic outcomes from choices and endings, so I consider it a better RPG game than FO4.


However, FO4 improved upon so many other things compared to FNV and is better game than FO3 in every possible way.



So I voted NO. FO4 is a fine piece of RPG game.

Care to elaborate with this? I hear it come up sometimes but I'm really curious as to what people mean. There are as many end game choices in NV as there are 4, and many of both games midgame choices affect things related to the different factions.

Also, NV had an actual endgame and you couldn't continue the story afterwords, you only reverted to the previous save game. So we couldn't ever see any real changes to our final choice in the "end game"

I played this game like 3-4 years ago so everything is little bit blur,

More or less each subquest having various endings depends on your choices. Like shooting rockets to the moon, defending jail from NCR, what to do with different super mutants and all that. There are also way more interactions with NPC people each having various quest and different outcome.

look, as game i like fallout 4 better than NV, because the things i like in a fallout game are "complex world design", tactical locations, not just standing in the middle of a empty desert with no places to hide etc, i like all the buildings you can go in, [not just a seperate cell] but open buildings you can go in, climb up stairs, snipe through openings, be able to hide from enemies, their maps and locations usualy have a lot of tactical options, the large dungeons with lots of enemies, the huge amount of stuff to loot, dense city areas with enemies, NV lacks in all that, as far as the story and quests, obsidian does do a good job with quest structuring and their stories, dialogue etc and they had limited time to make a complex game world, its just the "world building" part is a strong point of bethesda, enemies to fight are also a strong point of bethesda, storytelling and quests obsidian probably gets an edge for sure but overall i like the dense map of fallout 4, i like all different locations and large dungeons and settlement building, they put a lot of effort into all that, i don't really expect too much in the way of deep rpg elements in a bethesda game, i don't see it as watered down either, its just their style of game developing and what they put the focus on and its combat and exploration focused, the quest's are fine, sure they could be be better but i'm still enjoying the game.

Similar to letting the Scavs sneak onto the Constitution, siding with Bobbi in Handcocks warehouse, letting crazy Abbot wipe out his family, etc. There are choices and paths that differ in many of the sidequests. All of the ones you and I mentioned, didn't have any bearing on the main quest or gameworld at all really though. So while we have choices in some things, they're contained to that questline/branching questline

FNV did have a more defined plot line, or arcs.. But my characters were not memorable, maybe because i was younger and didnt put much emphasis on them, but making story decisions was much harder in NV for me. FO4 seems to have a weaker story but stronger characters. All of this is only part to a big picture of RPG, especially when it comes down to how a single person interperts RPG.

Times change and concepts and tech change with it. I'm sure they're would be a larger portion of people that would be upset if FO4 was developed with a super simple approach like wasteland or earlier fallout entries. One thing i've learned thoughtout video games is no game is the same as another. (execpt for COD maybe)

I no longer compare older releases to a new additions to a franchise, even if gamesites or mags hearld them as a reboot to an old game. I also dont buy into hype for games, franchises change hands when it comes to developers and even staff changes make for a different game. I purchased FO4 based on my simple enjoyment of past entries and that was about it, besides hearing it was a larger world, more fleshed out etc. all things you would expect for a state or the art game I went in with no reservations.

To me, OP you seem like you were expecting a NV reboot or something from you're posts around the board ive seen.

I prefer the idea FO4's system is more intelligent and generally better. New Vegas had a lot of problems with it's mechanics ranging from skills just being clumped together (Having a high gun skill meant everything that used ballistic weapons came natural to you instead of you know being skilled with small guns, being skilled with large guns, being skilled with rifles and assault rifles, that kind of stuff), no level cap which makes sense seeing as people just don't stop learning, removal of the stupid karma system which also doesn't make sense and did little for the games.

The only thing it didn't have that New Vegas did alright was the skill-related dialogue stuff though charisma is there and depending on other stuff like intelligence dialogue changes a bit.


Eh, maybe for like a handful of quests but a lot of New Vegas didn't really feel that dynamic and just having an exposition dump at the end of the game doesn't really count. Dynamic is the world in-game changes as you play so dynamic would be like a building under construction would get finished as you play through it or a settlement getting populated or de-populated based on your choices.

The only one I'd say that could feel dynamic would be Bitter Springs and the side questlines to recruit people like Boomers or Great Khans for the final battle (Which honestly is kinda lame because they're forced side-quests to expand the main story as the only other option depending on the faction you pick is to slaughter them with rarely any other option).

If you wanna defend FO4, feel free to do it on your own term.


I also played each game for over 200+ hours and I formed my opinion of FNV having bigger impact from my choices.


Nothing you say will change my opinion. FO4 future DLCs might.

Funny, I don't remember such 'dynamic' outcomes. I mean, sure you got a variable slide show after you were done playing that would give you a variety of post game narratives, but you don't see much change in game while you are playing. On the other hand, my characters Commonwealth has changed quite a bit since he stumbled out of the Vault. New thriving settlements to visit, highly armed Minutemen provisioners traveling up and down the roads and other stuff that would be too spoilerish for this section of the forums have produced visible changes all around.

Don't need to take that defensively. I was merely trying to point out that the same kinds of choices were in 4 as NV. You made a statement and I was trying to see how it compared to what I thought about 4. I've put well over 1000 into NV and it's probably my favorite game from the last console generation (my disappointment with it's main quest aside). But I do disagree that it has more dynamic choices.

Yeah. Sorry if my choice of word 'dynamic' was wrong.


I just meant to say, my choices made more difference in FNV than FO4 in my opinion.



This is FO4 forum. Always expect FO4 defenders.

Yea, Fallout 4 in general feels like my accomplishments matter more especially when it comes to settlement building. That's me making a change on the game world and it reacts. Caravans visit my settlements, I can establish my own supply link, I can build my settlements to be successful farms and towns with raiders occasionally trying to attack and take my supplies. That's dynamic, that's changing the game world.

And after the slide show, you had to revert to the previous save. You couldn't see how the final battle played out on the Mojave. I was always super disappointed in that

It did simplify/streamline/"dumb down" certain antiquated mechanics.

But no, it greatly expanded on RPG from previous games.

Also, about damn time Bethesda got around to improving combat in their games! And yes the gun combat is also vastly improved too, despite a lot of fugly guns.

This is my least favorite thing about the game. It's compounded by the protag being voiced.

Exactly this - Fallout 4 is an RPG but in different aspects than New Vegas and Fallout 1/2 was.

You mean "antiquated mechanics" like dialogue, characters, or plot?