I feel I opened the hornets nest here so instead of qouting everyone ill take what people said and use quotation marks..
"Removing traits, one of the layers of RPG in the first two games isn't "trivial". It just unnecessarily removing things for no reason. Quit trying to diminish the impact of removing stuff that didn't needed to be removed in the first place.
Why do you think Obsidian added them back to New Vegas? Because they add more choices for your character."
Again it was optional (I hardly ever used them in any game simply because I didn't like the status affects) and its a minor change in an element of the rpg systems. The removal of skills? Yeah thats actually the complete removal of a whole system. The removal of OPTIONAL pro/con boosts? Not the end of the world. Sorry but that feels like such an extreme nit pick I would scarce call it criticism.
"The main reason you are just objectively wrong about 3 and NV being virtually the same gameplay wise is because there are people who had to look extensively at the core mechanics of both game in order to make some mods. They are similar, yes, but not "virtually the same". Ask Risewild why their gameplay is not the same because he's working on Tale of Two Wastelands mod.
They definitely do not have the same exploration. Fallout 3 chooses to allow the player to explore everything at their leisure, while New Vegas wants to somewhat limit your exploration by making some areas hard to tackle early on."
Please for the love of god just stop. There is NO such thing as objectivity in games without just giving a bare explanation of what it is. Only thing you could be objective about is technical stuff. Also its a legitmitally bad attitude to have when talking criticism. Oh im sorry one uses a level system in order to manage exploration. Too bad its the same walking around and finding dungeons deal.. Admit it it plays the same. Even if the technical and small details are off you are easily forgetting one is a sequel that can benefit from minor improvements. Its not why new vegas is better and its almost certainly not the main reason its different from 3. Same perks and same skills. The format is the same regardless of whether the execution is slightly different because obviously different studious will have different approaches.
"Yes, there is, because then objectivity might as well not exist. If you can refute or at least have a counter argument, then it's not completely objective. But if you can't counter argue it, then might as well be objective. You can be fine with a game's problems, but they don't suddenly stop existing.
You are not gonna say games like Superman 64 and Ride to Hell Retribution aren't objectively bad."
Thats not objectivity, some people will view problems in a bigger light than others will. Its on an individual basis and jim sterling made a good video on this. "Well I made an argument DISPROVING yours so my personal biases and views are OBJECTIVELY MORE CORRECT than your biases and views cuz uhhh" get over it besides technical details (of which both of your examples had issues with) there is no objectivity in art. Again I legit hope your not of the attitude "he must like 3 and 4 then he HATES OBSIDIAN AND THINKS NEW VEGAS IS WORSE111//1/11!!!!! Cuz guess what I like the originals and new vegas more. Doesnt mean I think its bad and going off the majority of reviews, positive opinions and sales then clearly they did SOMETHING right. Is a tiny minority somehow more correct and a huge majority incorrect becuase they dont share you personal biases and views in a no true scotsman fallacy you got there? Also fallout 1 and 2 play almost identically in terms of core mechanics but still manage to be different games based on HOW they were used.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do not. Mechanics do not make the IP, but they make the series. Look at the Warhammer IP. There are a dozen video games there, and they all take place in the same IP settings; FPP and TPP shooters, RTS, and turn based... But what you don't see (with good reason) is a TPP shooter like Spacemarine, being marketed as a sequel to an RTS like Dawn of War. Spacemarine is no Dawn of War 2/3/4, and neither true is the reverse."
games have always even in series where the developer is shared changed mechanics and styles. Some people view it as experimentation. What if deus ex one day become a XCOM like game? Would I care? If it was good then not really no. And settings can more less be used with absloutley needing to the same as before.
"The medical skills are not redundant; one is a development path, the other is a minor medic skill for non-doctors. The First Aid skill gives 25xp per successful use, Doctor gives 50XP, and corrects crippling injuries when successful; both allow three uses per day... both use different amounts of time."
Its the same problem with the 3 speech skills in wasteland. Its redundant and serves no purpose other than forcing over specialization. Why do we need 2 medical skills or 3 speech skills? What does it add? Most games tend to limit skills within one broad branch. Unless your okay with like 5 gun skills for each type of gun.
**Gambling should have been a skill to detect cheating; rather than —to cheat? You can spam it in casinos for almost infinite cash if its high enough. Thats why I called it cheating.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Black Angel er...walking simulator is a poor term to use. Unless every open world game is a walking sim for letting you go anywhere.
Heres how to judge a game by its own merit. You played it without any biases or personal opinions in mind? Did you enjoy the core experience? No? Thats fine then maybe it isnt for you. yes? Great. I took this approach in regards to bioshock. I HATED how crappy of a spiritual successor it was. Played it again trying not to keep that in mind. turns out I liked it more and could appreciate its strengths. Did I significantly like it more? No not really hardly the second coming of Christ its hyped to be but if I got more out of something I bought is that so bad?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You bring up a really good point here, and you are 100% correct in saying that every video game doesn't need to have the greatest story of all time. Super Mario is literally about plumbers who save a princess from a giant turtle. The issue here is that we are talking about sequels to a games whose
defining traits include phenomenal writing. If it lacks that, it just simply isn't
Fallout. That would be like a Mario sequel where you can't jump."
I did acknowledge that, and it was one of my biggest gripes with 3. Writing is subjective anyway (but I guess its hard to be subjective on TRULY bad writing), I thought it was okay, average or mediocre but did shine in some points. Overall yeah its a bit eh in the main plot but it did have nice moments where you could see some potential.
"Since when is it unfair to judge directly equitable aspects of a
sequel based on the
original work? They're both called Fallout, and they both have narratives. There is a clear comparison to made here, dude. I really don't know what you're smoking if you think otherwise."
Im trying to get at that they're designed in completely different ways with different design goals. Obviously some comparison has to be made. Im just saying you shouldnt judge it too harshly considering isometric games can and have to dedicate more time and energy to extensive writing and choice.
"I think you need to view this from the perspective of people who can't enjoy the modern releases as others like yourself do. We don't get new versions of our favorite style of game. Ever. Bethesda essentially took the story and gameplay we liked and locked it away from us by turning Fallout into something it was never supposed to be. We are upset not only because the franchise is currently held by irresponsible hands, but because we are powerless to change that fact."
I understand that frustration and sympathize I really do. But honestly it may be worth letting go imo, our favorite games dotn define us as people and surely there are projects out there that deserve our attention who aim to appeal to our niches and interests yes? Hell the isometric genre is booming again and I feel if we really miss those old games we ought to give them support instead of railing on Bethesda for making loads of money who see no reason to change back to isometric at all.
"You're right for the most part, (and I agree with you on the medicine/gambling thing), but again there's a huge issue with this argument. The GURPS-style roleplaying system the original Fallout used is a
core feature of the series.
If it doesn't have SPECIAL, Perks, Skills, Traits, Karma, and Reputation, then it isn't really Fallout. It's some other game, regardless of what's printed on the box."
I am in agreement that probably one of my biggest issues with new fallouts is the removal of a lot of these good systems. That said games are not usually static in their core systems. A new lead for a series (bethesda) and different customer basis and personal development experience (aka games they've built before) means change is inevitable. I dont really think were the targeted market for this anymore and to make the games they do they probably have to change things. The reason the probably got rid of karma was not because they despise us or anything but probably because it was nuisance for taking items (stealing) and maybe they wanted to give players options without givign them good boy or bad boy stickers. Thats just an example anyway.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that was an essays worth of writing there and im kinda pooped so dont crucify me if I dont immediately respond back. Idk my whole point is not wether fallout 3 and 4 were good games or if you HAVE to enjoy them. You are free sentient human beings who can come to those decisions by yourself and should not be judged for liking or disliking them. But civil discussion about our beliefs should be encouraged. Anyway my whole point was that Bethesda can take whatever damn direction they want cuz people will probably buy and like whatever they make anyway and we as community are better off moving on the series and games that appeal to what we want.
