Except it's not up to you in Fallout 4. The game outright tells you how you need to feel about the McGuffin, the protagonist spends the first half of the game running around the wasteland whining about his lost child and telling people about how he or she misses them so much, and while that makes sense given that they are the child's parent - it's needlessly restrictive for the player. If you're writing a story for a freeform RPG like Fallout, and it doesn't make sense for the protagonist to be anything but an emotional wreck who desperately wants to find what they're looking for, you should probably go back to the drawing board.

The difference between Fallout 1, 2, New Vegas and Fallout 4 is that the former three never forced the protagonist to feel anything towards the McGuffin beyond their obligation to find it, it was just your character's motivation for leaving their former life behind, and interacting with the world. They had to find that initial objective, but you never saw the Vault Dweller crying about the Water Chip, or the Courier whining about the Platinum Chip - they just asked people if they knew where to find what they were looking for. Their feelings towards the McGuffin, and their mission, were completely up to you.

Ok I'll put it another way. What is it that makes the original fallout games better than Beths interpretation? (not really discussing Fo4 here)

And my contention is by any measurement ... it is subjective to personal preference , which is a by product of imagination.

Sorry but this sounds like a pretty lame excuse. Fallout 1 did have the Vault Dweller feel something hence why there is a time limit and you couldn't just say "screw the water chip, I'm done with the Vault" you still HAD to do the vault stuff. Same with Arroyo, Fallout 3 has the same dialogue where you're forced to look for daddy and the Courier, while much like the Sole Survivor, can be dodgy about the subject can still show they care through dialogue

Again, it's not different from the other four McGuffin getters in Fallout's history.

There's a pretty big difference, and I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this for you.

The Vault Dweller has to find the water chip because without it their home dies, the Chosen One has to find the GECK because without it their home dies, the Courier has to find the platinum chip because the Mojave Express will hold them accountable if they don't. You're given a bare bones motivation that serves as the setup for the scenario, you're not told what the protagonists actually think about any of it - they run around the wasteland asking people if they've seen what they're looking for in a very neutral manner. Maybe the Vault Dweller is a lazy bum who doesn't actually want to be out in the wasteland looking for the water chip, but they drew the short straw and weren't given any choice in the matter - that's certainly something you can role play because the game doesn't tell you how the protagonist actually feels one way or another.

Fast forward to Fallout 4, and you don't have any choice. You're told exactly who the Sole Survivor is and what they think about their McGuffin - every dialogue option you get is just a different flavor of "WHERE'S MY CHILD I MISS THEM SO MUCH".

The time limit had nothing to do with feelings. It had to do with the missing water chip.


Also, I don't recall being forced to bring up any of those things in every other dialogue. My characters never held back tears about water chips or poker chips. Only about Shauuuunnnnnnn

Which is something that I disliked.

"Play what ever you want!"

Yet my character or the NPCs keep talking about SHAAAAAAUUUUNNN or the dead spouse every other conversation? It's pretty hard to roleplay through that.

I had no issues with that on 3 or NV heck even 1 and 2, I could play what ever I wanted without the missing dad or the missing chip being force feed through dialog. Unlike Shaaaaaaaunnnn dialog options where the game just gives you 4 variations of "Where's my son!" Even in quest that were not part of the Main quest which got more annoying.

Anyway.. enough of that rant.

I still play 1, 2 and Tactics on occasion, with Tactics the one that I bring out every other month! Never had any issue playing them.

Yeano still calling bullcrap. Again, this happens in each game and each protag shows they actually care, even the courier shows they care by hunting down benny. It's a requirement to care because you need to get the McGuffins and have to do a set path and there is dialogue to show they care. Maybe Fallout 4 is getting a lot of the bullcrap because it tried a voiced protag but it's

literally

the

same

thing

in

each

game.

I am not attacking or complaining about imagination I have zero concerns with the amount of imagination anyone wants to use. If they want to "roleplay" a guard in Oblivion or pretend they're a Enclave deserter in Fallout 3/4 or make up imaginary limiting mechanics like no fast travel go right ahead. The only objection I have in such cases is with people arguing the games support that form of roleplaying when they do not at all and you could imagine such restrictions and roles in essentially any game to one extent or another.

Players absolutely use it as an excuse for poor mechanics. I have repeatedly seen criticisms of the character systems answered by comments that people don't need to take overpowered perks, or that the fact that all characters can end up functionally or actually identical isn't important because true roleplayers simply wouldn't use or do anything their made up character concept didn't embrace, or how the preset backgrounds in Fallout 3/4 don't matter because you can just make up your own and ignore the main quests.


From the perspective of making RPGs yes they are absolutely vastly more flawed than in 1/2 and no the mechanics in 1/2 were not very flawed. That's quite a leap from the minor criticisms of skill design you offered. They were far from perfect but they were a good system (particularly considering how quickly they were created) which is why they produced what are almost universally acknowledged as two of the greatest roleplaying games of all time. Just compare the impact of SPECIAL in the old games to the new games if you want a quick and easy way to understand how the systems of Fallout 1/2 gave the player substantially more opportunity to create distinct characters that could interact with the world in very different ways vs the bland sameness/pistol vs rifle approach of the newer games.


As RPGs it's pretty apparent which set of games is superior and the only people who deny this are pig-headed contrarians. Even Bethesda doesn't deny it which is why all their Fallout games are called action-RPGs. Chess is a better chess game than a hybrid of chess and checkers even if you personally find the latter more fun. As games there is of course little anyone could find or argue that would make them objectively superior. I prefer them but that's my personal preference. If you prefer the newer games that's your personal preference.

And no preference is not subject or related to imagination. I know I prefer to play Fallout 1/2 to any of the newer games. I am not imagining that unless you want to go into some deep conversation about the reality of pleasure or emotions.

Yes because there is nothing flawed about being a doctor who doesn't know the first thing about first aid or a very stealthy person being really awful at just taking a cup off a counter. The mechanics did have flaws, quite a lot actually, and yea the character system in 1 and 2 can be considered flawed just because you don't consider them that doesn't make it true.

Also yes, the systems in 3, NV and 4 do support playing with imagination, again it's entirely on you if you don't have any imagination in these games. The games do offer that level of role-playing. Role-playing isn't just "Oh it has to be a top-down isometric game" role-playing can be done in any kind of genre style so long as the game supports it and guess what, Fallout 3, New Vegas and 4 all support it. If you feel you can't role a certain character that is once again entirely on you.

Right I don't believe the mechanics had any flaws in Fallout 1/2 that's why I have repeatedly said the systems were far from perfect. So far you have literally offered no criticism of the systems in Fallout 1/2 beyond minor, easily-fixable critiques of the skill system which does not lead me to agree with your argument that the systems in Fallout 1/2 were very flawed or on the same level as the ones in the new games. Or are you backtracking on the very flawed description now? Buttressing your argument is more convincing than ascribing obviously false positions to me particularly when everything I have written is in plain text a post above yours.

Not to any great extent nor once again have I argued anywhere that role-playing must be top-down isometric. Nothing in Fallout 3 or 4 supports the PC being anything other than a Vault Dweller or pre-war survivor looking for their family members. Nothing in Fallout 3/NV supports you not having skills you absolutely possess and are proficient in simply because you made up a character concept in your head. All these things are imaginary and the games do nothing to support them. If you want to do that that's great. But please explain to me how the games are supporting these things you are imagining.

In interviews, Bethesda calls their games RPGs. They label their games action RPGs because player actions replace the more commonly-used chance in certain facets the game such as hitting and dodging. Action RPGs and the traditional chance-based RPGs are both equally RPGs, and are merely different styles of RPG, much as Baroque and Jazz are different styles of music.

Considering that a role is played when, and only when, the player acts on his character's behalf, it is illogical to regard the action in an action RPG as anything other than role-play.

No because the entire concept of an action-RPG, at least in the Bethesda sense we're talking about, is a game that has a mix of RPG and action/shooter mechanics. If you like it great but it isn't equally an RPG when I can make a character with 1 PER and then snipe people from halfway across the map.

Baroque and jazz are different styles of music just as cRPGs and first-person shooters are different genres of games. If you hybridize the two would you really insist that your piece of Baroque music with Jazz influence is every bit as Baroque a piece of music as Pachelbel's Canon? Evidently it cannot be.

Dude no offense but you're sounding like an RPG elitist. The game is a perfectly fine RPG just because it's more action-oriented then turn-based or tactic based doesn't make it anymore less of an RPG. The game functions fine as a RPG as do numerous other games that focus more on action-RPG then any isometric rpgs

Again, the character system isn't as flawed as you make it out to be, the mechanics do in fact cater to role-players. Yes Bethesda games, even if more action based, as still 100% role-playing games that can be role-played as much as games like Fallout 1 or Shadowrun.

Reality is not elitist. I am not denouncing action-RPGs as impure heresies that must be struck down with righteous fury. Mechanics imported directly from FPS games that entirely contradict the concept of a distinct character are objectively not RPG mechanics and a game that incorporates them at the expense of the character is obviously less of an RPG than a game that does not. Accept reality and move on. There is nothing wrong with liking action-RPGs. I know for some baffling reason many Bethesda fans have a tendency to interpret "your games are not pure RPGs" as some sort of personal attack that implies they're morons but that really is not the case.

Once again please explain to me how Bethesda games are supporting these things you claim they are supporting or how they are every bit as much RPGs as games like Fallout 1/2. What is an RPG anyway if you're rejecting the concept of a distinct character as being apparently unimportant? What does the term suggest? Why have we labelled a distinct genre of games as RPGs?

Lol you can mix elements of different genres and still have it be an RPG.

Hmmm let's see

1. Can play a certain character's personality. Check
2. Can arrange starter points to determine a certain build you want to do. Check
3. Free to use any kind of outfit or weapon build you want. Check
4. Character progression. Check
5. Can design your character to how you want. Check
6. Can accurately play your character's build to how you wanted. Check

Now explain to me, how is a game like Fallout 4 not an RPG? Because it has guns? Because it's gunplay is more refined? Because it's not an archaic as hell designed game? Go on tell me, how is it not an RPG?

Obligation is not the same thing as caring. Being obligated to track down the water chip, GECK, and platinum chip because you have to is not the same thing as actually caring about them, or the mission. You can outright tell people in Fallout 2 that you think the quest to find the GECK is a suicide mission, that you don't want to do it, and get this - it's optional to say this. In Fallout 4 you're not given any option, all of your dialogue choices are a variation of crying about Shaun.

If you can't see the difference at this point I don't know what to tell you. I'm done regardless.

Or you can be dodgy about the subject in Fallout 4. Did you not play this game? Sure it's brought up but you can be dodgy about the subject. I've noticed that option NUMEROUS times in the game. Again, it's literally the same thing in all the other games.

Except not at all.


In the other games you don't have to regularly address it. In Fallout 4 you're constantly either crying about Shaun, crying about your wife, threatening to kill Kellog, or at best refusing to talk about it.


So best case scenario you're a guy who was married, had a child, had that spouse murder d and child kidnapped, and now you bop along all over the wasteland looking for them but refusing to talk about it.....and still get virtually identical responses from people.


Just like in Fallout 1, 2, Tactics and NV where.... Oh, no, that didn't happen in the other games. Wasn't nearly as bad in 3 either.


When the wiki comes out it will help highlight that, but for now consider that no one is pretending F4 doesn't have that problem and no one is pointing out instances from the previous games. Instead you're just stating "the others were just as bad" as though that is the final word.


The problem is only exasperated by the switch to voice acting. If the game were primarily text based the numerous "wahhhh Shauuuuuuun" instances could be lost amongst the many choices. With full VA and the little Bubbles thing....

And yet the storyline was way more emotional and therefore better than any other Fallout game.

Thats a massively opinionated statement.


The feelings didn't work for me, particularly the grand reveal. Not enough choices and too shoehorned in.


Also "the feels" isn't how I judge an RPG. It's not a particularly quantifiable metric either

Wasn't this about Fallout? You know the original game.

The feels isn't how i judge any game, but it helps if it has them, by alot. Fallout 4 managed to get me more invested in its main story than any previous Fallout game, and to me that is the most important thing.

That's highly debatable. I think Fallout 4 has the second worst storyline in the series after Fallout 3, and I didn't think it was terribly emotional either.

This would be relevant if I was arguing at any point that action-RPGs are no longer RPGs or that Fallout 4 is not an RPG. Since I haven't argued either of those things however I have no clue how any of this constitutes a response to anything I have been saying.

People got emotional with Fallout 4? I mean, fine for you if you did and all but...how?!?

I cared more about getting some water for my vault in the original game than my characters son possibly being dead in Fallout 4. The writing in F4 plays out like a mediocre childrens cartoon.

Agreed.


I cared for a few seconds, right after the wife gets shot and the kid gets stolen. But after the twenty seventh time I was confronted with a multiple choice question regarding what stage of grief I was currently in...right about there I realized I really didn't give a crap and just wanted to figure out which factions I liked and which I didn't so I could get back to the pew pew.


I was more invested in why dad left and didn't take me...though that proved pretty unsatisfying too.