CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
It is a reboot. Just a soft reboot. They don't do anything on the West Coast but did something on the East Coast, literally a thousand miles away.
So, should the SS have been a Synth or not?
- Thread starter CT Phipps
- Start date
Carbon Dated and Proud
It is a reboot. Just a soft reboot. They don't do anything on the West Coast but did something on the East Coast, literally a thousand miles away.
Except, that all of what you just said, doesn't reflect the marketing and intention of the games. Both games, have been marketed and sold as squels to the first 2 games. What ever Bethesda 'had in mind' when they made the games, is pure speculation. And that is how I will judge their games, as Sequels, which means that they are absolute garbage Fallout games. What ever 'fun' there is, is a whole different question.
I think, we are talking past each other right now.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
I think it's the fact that you think they should be separate universes and I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter to me whether they're officially separate universes since they manifestly are just by the fact it's two different companies. The fact Bethesda branches off from the original isn't a big deal to me.
Prone Squanderer
A bit of a Sillius Soddus.
But I feel one could argue it has branched off so much it isn't a Fallout game anymore.
Is there anything we actually agree on Phipps? XD
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
I, personally, like Bethesda's interpretation of the franchise even if I'm deeply disappointed with Fallout 4. I think their interpretation led directly to New Vegas, which I consider to be the best Fallout game and I love Fallout 3 more than the original 2 games both in terms of characters as well as gameplay.
So it's a matter of taste, I guess.
Honestly, while the retro-1950s universe elements are really new (the original game had some but not the original), and the world is decidedly different (the fact it's not been rebuilt in 200 years), I appreciate it for what it is. I also think the Fallout elements are certainly there in terms of exploring various societies and factions in a post-apocalypse environment.
Probably not.
That's why we are talking past each other, I am not talking about how 'you' feel about it, but what the core behind Fallout is. Fallout 4 is barelly recognizeable as Fallout game anymore, and only a cynical would describe Fallout 4 as RPG. At which point, is a game steering so far away from the source material, that you still consider it a part of the Franchise? I am sure Bethesda could make an angry Bird clone with Fallout assets, but it wouldn't be a Sequel.
It really isn't difficult to see what Fallout was about, the first game is there, for everyone to play and the developers have been pretty clear about their goals when they made F1, which we know from the interviews of which some are hosted on NMA.
What I, you or anyone else 'feels' about Fallout, doesn't matter here. It's like if you said gravity isn't something you think about, beacuse it's not a big deal for you. But it doesn't matter what you 'feel' about gravity, it is still defined and there. The same can be said about the principle that is behind Fallout. What ever if Bethesda is a different company or not is completely irrelevant.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Well, I disagree with that as well for multiple reasons. Fallout 4 certainly feels like Fallout, it's just badly done Fallout. It's also an RPG the same way Baldur's Gate is an RPG. You start as the brother of Imoen, the Bhaalspawn, and raised in Candlekeep.
What you do afterward is up to you.
What you do afterward is up to you.
Last edited:
That's so broad of a definition, that you could even call Doom the Cellphone game an RPG with that analogy ...
Fallout 4 'feels' like Fallout, well so did Fallout POS.
Fallout 4 'feels' like Fallout, well so did Fallout POS.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
For me a Roleplaying Game qualifies as such when you're assuming the role of a character and have some input on how they react to events. There's a lot more restrictions on creating a character in the Fallout games as a WHOLE versus, say, the Elder Scrolls but I think it's still squarely in the realm of an RPG. Otherwise, the Witcher games wouldn't be RPGs and that's just ridiculous.
Do they feel like zany post-apocalypse sci-fi adventures in the vein of Mad Max, A Boy and his Dog, Radioactive Dreams, and 1950s science fiction? If so, then I think it feels like Fallout. Say what you will about the Commonwealth but it is a radioactive shithole full of things trying to kill you.
This perfectly describes Call of Duty, even Angry Birds, where you controll a whole party.
Is Angry Birds a role playing game?
There is this 'idea' that a role playing game, would be about freedom and just interaction. While many great role playing games definetly give you choices and interactions, they also imposse a lot of limitations on the character, some can be violated while others not. In CoD for example, a soldier can use any weapon he can pick up and only the player decides - for the most part - how effective it is. In a game like Fallout you can not use every item and those that you can use can be used with varying efficiency depending on the 'skills' of your character. An NPC with 0% in repair, can never ever hope to repair anything, where as a character with 200% in repair, can be considered a genius in engineering, crafting a doomsday weapon out of a toaster, some ducktape and plutonium. In games like Baldurs Gate, many classes can not never use certain items or abilities even, mages have no use most weapons, paladins are restricted to specific types of weapons and so on. And as far as the narrative goes a good RPG will have some huge restrictions here as well. A Paladin that is not keeping up a certain reputation might lose his status and abilities as Paladin becoming a fallen Paladin, a Druid or Cleric have to follow a certain aligment, and some deity and so on, which means that all of those characters will react different to the same situation and tackling issues in a different way. A village that is attacked by animals for example, might be solved in different ways depending on what ever if the player is a neutral Druid, an lawful good Paladin or a Thief with an chaotic evil aligment, who might actually see the burning down of the village while the animals are inside as a sufficent solution to the problem.
What you describe here, without any offese, is your 'preference' in Fallout games - and RPGs, not what an actuall Fallout sequel should bring to the table to be an 'appropiate' sequel.
Again, we continoulsy talk past each other because I am talking about that a good chicken sandwhich should contain chicken, where you tell me that it doesn't matter for you, because you like bacon, so when you get a chicken sandwhich without chicken but with bacon, eveything is fine for you.
Last edited:
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
I'm talking about why I think Fallout is Fallout and you're basically saying why the original Fallouts (which determine your origins every bit as much as Fallout 4) aren't roleplaying games. Which is basically a stance I don't think you should try and stand on. I do think we're talking past each other but what we consider qualifying is different.
But it is pretty obvious what the Fallout games 'are', and it is pretty obvious what Fallout 4 is.
This is Fallout 1:
My idea is to explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun.
Timmothy Cain, one of the original creators of Fallout.
This is Fallout 4 and 3, in a nutshell:
Fallout 1 is about actuall role palying, where Fallout 3 and 4 are about power-fantasies, which is what you usually get with shooters.
This is Fallout 1:
My idea is to explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun.
Timmothy Cain, one of the original creators of Fallout.
This is Fallout 4 and 3, in a nutshell:
Fallout 1 is about actuall role palying, where Fallout 3 and 4 are about power-fantasies, which is what you usually get with shooters.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
New Vegas came from the interpretation and experiences of people who actually make RPGs and had a history with Fallout not from Fallout 3. Josh Sawyer the game director was project lead in whar was gonna be Fallout 3 had Interplay not gonne belly up and many elemnts in New Vegas were repurposed from that original FO3, not Bethesda's Oblivion with guns. Hell New Vegas has an entirely different design philosophy to FO3, no idea why you think FO3 lead to NV in any meaningful way other than having to use the same engine.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
The entirely different design philosophy is kind of a bizarre thing to say as the games are virtually identical in the form of being shoot-em-up RPGs which are based around exploration and questing in a 3D environment. The games also have a lot of similarity in the fact they're faction based and choosing which side to join in a conflict.
Yes, New Vegas had a lot of the original staff going for it and was set on the West Coast but that doesn't mean a change of kind just degree.
Yes, literaly the same kind of game.
I shudder at the thought, what Obsidian might have done if they had like 5 years of development time and Bethesdas resources and marketing and complete freedom in their work.
0wing
Все умрут, а я волномут
As Tim Cain stated, RPGs need a 3 year development time at best. But as we know, Obsidian are far too good at management to fuck around for five years. So basically the same result, see Alpha Protocol for reference. I'd rather give them the exact three years considering the existing base. They'd expand and elaborate on Legion to alot, that's for sure.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Things are the same when you reduce them to barebones descriptions. Who would've thought. Who ever looks at the specifics and the way things are planed and layed out to analyze design philosophy? Nah that you get by listing the Steam tags. Everybody also knows Stalker is the same game as Farcry because they are also open world shooters...
olestra
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
these questions are so hopeless
I'll cut you some slack because you're a noob, but you do realize that this is NMA, right?
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Did you seriously just compare Fallout to Baldur's gate in terms of how much of an RPG they are?
Like, one's a dialogue heavy classic, built in the style of AD&D, with huge amounts of customisation between the classes/multi-classing/skills/proficiencies, a game where your decisions feel like they matter.
The other is a game where almost every single way of customising your character is through static combat bonuses, and has a dialogue wheel.