Fallout 4 is an ARPG

[StopSigntheVendingMachine]

All signs point to this. The oversaturation of Unique Items with Legendary Items. More dungeons than towns. The simplification of Perks. Companions who give you ammunition and health items regularly. Most of the side-factions are just different flavors of Raider gang. Even robots are pissed off at you. Since I first played Fallout 2 and recently got back into FOnline: Reloaded, I've wondered what different games would look like in different engines and genres. How the game mechanics would translate, and such. I know this thread is redundant as all hell, but let's pretend some more. Let's pretend that Bethesda released the game as a spin off ARPG. It's isometric view would be enough of a dramatic change from the first person, open world formula to be treated like a spin off. It also would have a different subtitle to give people the impression that the company is working on the real Fallout 4. Would this reimagining be well remembered today if it was what we got? Would this change justify the bad writing in the game? Would newcomers who were introduced to the series by Fallout 4 (or god forbid '76) accept it as well?

 

[Mr Fish]

ARPG?
Isometric?
You mean a diablo-clone?

And no, I would not accept it any more than I accept F:BOS. It's writing is shit and the handling of the lore is rape.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I wouldn't care so long as it was not an official numbered sequel; the Fallout 3, and the Fallout 4.

With that stipulation... any Fallout IP game is fine by me, and would not stop me playing it if it could hold my interest.

IE. I love Dawn of War, and liked Spacemarine—but I'd never accept Spacemarine as a numbered DoW sequel.

 

[Mr Fish]

I would want a spin-off that does its own lore stuff to at the very least be consistent within itself and FO4 has moments where it is not and where its own writing just doesn't make any sense.

Now if it was designed like Fallout Shelter then I wouldn't care as that game obviously isn't trying to be serious about "lore" or anything, it's just a fun game.

 

[StopSigntheVendingMachine]

You mean a diablo-clone?

I've only played Torchlight 1 & 2, but they're made by the same people, so yes.

And no, I would not accept it any more than I accept F:BOS. It's writing is shit and the handling of the lore is rape.

Don't know how deep Diablo lore is. But, @Gizmojunk mentioning Warhammer reminded me that action-oriented games can have sophisticated backstories, especially one that's assumedly several Bibles long. I was just under the impression of "if the player isn't going to see [blank], why put it in the game?" Fallout has as rich a history as any game series, so everyone would still expect Bethesda to follow the lore and expand on it, regardless of genre?

I wouldn't care so long as it was not an official numbered sequel

That's the idea, but the game itself would still be made by the official owners of the license.