Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout 4' started by ZigzagPX4, Jan 17, 2016.
I gotta ask. What's wrong with Mass Effect 2?
Not much, really. It's just that, from what I can gather, it's less of an RPG than the first game, and most of this forum tends to circle around that a lot. It's a great game, it's just not much in the way of an RPG.
The plot didn't really have much relevance to the rest of the series and was a bit of an outlier, considering the Reaper threat just ups and disappears in ME2 and you're forced to fight the Collectors, who are not much of an immediate threat and have no overall importance to the rest of the series. But most of that doesn't matter, since the game was very good by modern standards of an action RPG.
The majority of this forum compares anything with the "RPG" label on the box to Fallout 2 and other games from Fallout 2's era, which means that rarely anything is ever going to pass the standards. I personally would expect it from the Fallout series, but I never expect every variant of an RPG game to have flawless writing and memorable stories.
So there's nothing wrong with Mass Effect 2 apart from it being a bit of a crappy RPG.
Even dx human revolution has a better dialogue wheel and that one´s supposed to be an FPS/stealth hybrid
Actually, it's touted as an RPG. A stealth action RPG, yes, but still an RPG. But then the skill building in that game actually has an impact on the missions you do, so I would say it still stands as a better RPG than Fallout 4.
In a twist of painful irony, Deus Ex along with XCOM were the series that were luckier than Fallout and managed to retain most to all of their original charm. The games are the same genre with the same gameplay as their classic originals, with their own modern twists on them, and whatever drawbacks the AAA industry slapped on them (for Deus Ex it was the unskippable boss fights and prerendered cutscenes, for XCOM it was the linearity and lack of depth) was later fixed in expansions.
So while Deus Ex and XCOM stands proving that the AAA industry can still profit off making sequels faithful to the original, Bethesda sorts of completely ignores that school of thought, and just like EA's Syndicate, goes with the "make it just like every other game" route.
Nothing is wrong with it, I just found it odd that the list chose 2 as opposed to all of them as a series and Witcher 3 instead of all Witcher games.
Of course, you can't do that with Dragon Age because Origins was amazing and DA2 is the example people use to show how EA ruins video games.
For the fourth post in this thread, the list is derived DIRECTLY from the link in my original post, with the exception of Fallout 2 and New Vegas, because I wanted to go over discussing the RPG-ness of these games rather than circlejerk over our love for Black Isle and Obsidian again.
I agree with everything this post says.
The "RPG-ness" of these games: Fallout 4 does not even belong on a list of RPGs. It isn't even categorized as an RPG on metacritic anymore. It is categorized as "General," probably because they don't have a genre called "Offline MMO" yet.
Mass Effect 2 is actually in my opinion the best of the Mass Effect games, it was no longer an "rpg" like the first, but the first was a pretty clunky rpg and even clunkier shooter. The story is the one that is less "Space Soap Opera" by the numbers and introduces the two best charactera of the Franchise, Mordin and Legion; it also had the Suicide Mission, which, while not perfect (a lot of the "consequences" are pretty artificial and not directly related to loyalty as much as they are just random chance) it was very well put together and at least made you stop and consider what would be the best course of action for the next leg of the mission as Opposed to the endings of Both ME1 and 3 which are mostly linear. Sure the story ended up being a non sequitur because of ME3, but I consider that more of ME3's fault as that game just went for the safest route possible and turned Cerberus into evil techno zombies among other things.
"Not an rpg" isn't always "it's bad", Platinum games aren't RPGs and I consider them excellent games.
The failures of Fo4 as an RPG are felt from the very beginning, when your character starts giving HIS thoughts on things without asking you, seems silly but the very fact that you are forced to say things like "Good ol' USA" just completely runs opposite with the very essence of the Fallout series.
After playing through it again I came to appreciate the "Suicide Squad" approach to ME2. It definitely felt like a deeper experience in the Mass Effect Universe exploring the Terminus Systems. While I didn't like the streamlining of all the weapons and upgrades, the game was good.
The "Indoctrination Theory" really pulled the game together for me. I can choose to not believe it and go with the "Synthesis" ending or believe it and go with the "Destroy" ending, and either way isn't totally disappointing despite all the bad press the game received.
As for Cerberus in ME3, the Prothean VI on Thessia explains some interesting points related to how his war with the Reapers went in his cycle - it really made it work for me. There are other points that add to this, making the Cerberus situation fit well. The writers for this series have generally put in a good amount of effort to explaining why things are happening the way they are and for that they should be commended, especially when you compare that effort to what we get with Kid in the Fridge.
The main issue is that after playing through the entire series in quick succession, there is a definite lack of responsiveness/consequences to your choices in ME3 that is disappointing. But as an overall story it is great even despite that. A lot of these consequences degenerated into Shepherd receiving an email from people in previous games saying "Hey thanks for being a cool dude" or "Shepherd you're a douche" and that was definitely disappointing.
Pretty much this. XCOM: Enemy Unknown was the sequel most fans of XCOM wanted. Fallout 4 is the "The Bureau: XCOM Declassified" of the Fallout series - a game which is Fallout in name and setting and almost nothing else.
Everytime I see a "romance guide for Fallout 4" or a "build guide for Fallout 4" I am surprised to learn there are people that would need a guide to romance Piper when she'll sleep with you for picking a few locks despite hating you for stealing what's behind those locks and a build guide when builds no longer matter. And when people say the characters are better in FO4 I remember Bioware games or other RPGs or even Fallout 3 and it does not even compare.
I'm not arguing whether Fallout 4 is an RPG or not! I'm just transplanting an article list into a poll. Fallout 4 is not an RPG, but it's on the list for variety and the sake of it, so simply don't vote for it.
I mean, it's right there in my original post - the whole list. And I've already said why I took out two of the options. Fallout 4 is in the poll just because.
As a game, very little. It's a good game, but it suffers from a lot of overcorrection to the rough edges for its predecessor's mechanics. Like the first game had a poor inventory system, so Mass Effect 2 just drops the inventory system entirely. It caught a lot of flak from RPG purists because it dropped *a lot* of "RPG elements", but it's a game with good characters and an interesting setting and one of the better implemented dialogue wheels in games.
ME2 is my least favorite Mass Effect game, but I still like it.
That's because people want to cash in on the hype & popularity of the game.
MrMattPlays on youtube who found channel success majorly on 'Fallout 4' .. and that MxR Mods guy who somehow jumped on the 'Fallout 4' bandwagon as well.
From what I heard MrMattPlays is backpedaling so hard after realizing what Fallout 4 was(after saying "a near perfect game") that the Earth's rotation is moving in reverse.
Lol yea there was a thread about this where he released a video the day of release calling it a "near perfect videogame."
Anyone with a microphone and YouTube account can claim to be a game reviewer/journalist.
One thing that really bugs me about the dialogue wheel is that there /are/ a few (Not many.) instances where your special skills determine your speech. Like an INT... Let's call it a check on one of the Brotherhood Missions where you can claim to already know what parts you need to build a thing. But there's no indication that the stat is affecting your dialogue and the only way you could know without looking it up is to replay the scene with two different characters.
This bugs me for a couple reasons. The first one would be that there's no skills to determine your character build. INT is just a catch all for smartypants characters in this scenario. What if my character is smart because she's a doctor, or a biologist, or a lawyer like the game determined that she was for me before even starting? Why does she know advanced engineering? Because she's smart? This is why the previous games had most of their checks be skill-based rather than SPECIAL based.
The other thing that peeves me about this is that it's completely meaningless. Without a marker to let you know your stat is affecting dialogue (Like, you know... an RPG?) then what's the point. You don't know what's going on so you don't really have the option of picking that dialogue choice for the purpose of roleplaying. In New Vegas, I took lesser skill options (Ass in, smaller XP gains) because that stat was more important to the character I was playing and thus, they would think of that first. On a more technical side, without something like [Science 48/50] there to show you what stat affects the dialogue, you can't pop a pill or change clothes to boost that stat you're barely missing or with something like [Repair 13/45] to let you know that the option is a lost cause for the immediate future and you'd be better off going a different way.
These aren't the biggest problems with the game's RPG mechanics, but it's not one I see brought up often and it gets under my skin.
That video really ticked me off but I wasn't surprised considering his hype before release.
Really? Where and how?
I'll have to dig it up and edit this post when I find it, as of right now I'm too lazy to search for it.
There's this one aspect of Fallout 4 that's really telling of the direction the series has taken. You see how all the good dialogue has been relegated to raiders on patrol chatting about interesting stories and the aspects of their background life?
Do you find this in RPGs? No. You find this action-adventure games, stealth games, and FPS games. Splinter Cell, Uncharted, Far Cry, Call of Duty, GTA, Bioshock, and Mass Effect. Where you stroll by and two enemy NPCs are having a little chat. That's not an RPG thing, it's an action game thing! It's one of the little knots that tie it all together to show how Fallout 4 has basically shed its depth and narrative for action and excitement.
So, sure, you find this in New Vegas too. But they're natural side dialog, and they don't require you to have to sneak by and listen up. You hear them chatting about something interesting, you think "oh, this guy's interesting" and then you go over and talk to him. And then he gives you a quest! Which then, in a nice neat pile of coincidence, ties in to the main quest for the faction you're working against. That kind of pathways that mesh up together to make adventures work is how an RPG should be designed.
They're relevant. It's not dialogue for quick laughs, it's dialogue that fleshes out a character, a faction, an environment, gives you context, or tells you something you wouldn't be able to get in normal conversation. A couple of enemy patrol guards telling jokes or sharing stories over a fire is something you get in Metal Gear Solid at best. Not a Fallout game. It's a fantastic little touch in action-adventure games, though. But not in Fallout.