CerberusGate
I should save my game in a whole new slot
I'm am in the same boat tbh. I only brought up the post because someone will bring it up eventually. Might as well bring it up early and get it over with.
The Fallout 4 review by members of No Mutants Allowed
- Thread starter The Dutch Ghost
- Start date
Black Angel
Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus
I don't think that's how it works, especially considering cRPGs had its roots in P&P RPGs/D&D. You wouldn't actually play P&P the way YOU preferred it, instead of going by the systems and the rules set up for the session/campaign, right? That's just an excuse to let people who hate/don't want to play RPGs, but still want to play/sounds like they are playing an RPG, to play 'RPGs'.
That's such an oversimplification of things. According to googling 'perks definition',
To provide another example to understand what a 'perk' supposed to do, let's take a look at 'feats' definition, which could be called a substitute to 'perks', and in Underrail 'perks' are called 'feats':
Additional benefit, advantage, bonus, extra, achievement, coup, endeavor, exploit..... I don't think you could ever get any of that by merely having the sufficient skill, but rather that by having the sufficient skill you would be able to get those 'extra' or 'exploit'. For example, in New Vegas merely having 90 points in Repair doesn't mean you would be able to perform Jury Rigging, but by investing 90 points in Repair, using up a perk point and (by definition) have the character to learn how to do it, they would be able to perform it because they met the requirements to learn and do it. If we try to go by your definition that, 'both perks and skills do the same thing in the end', then any character attaining 90 points in Repair SHOULD be able to perform Jury Rigging.
Now, according to googling 'skills definition':
"The ability to do something well" doesn't necessarily means one would be able to perform an exploit, as I explained that a character having 90 points in Repair doesn't necessarily means they would be able to automatically perform Jury Rigging, but rather by investing 90 points in Repair, and (by definition, as abstracted by putting a perk point) have the character to learn how to do it, the character can now perform Jury Rigging.
Besides, what is the point playing a game where different playthrough would end up in our characters being practically the same, because there are no weaknesses to define the role we are playing?
Care to elaborate further by what you meant by "random situations" and "already listed"?
One of the major criticism against Fallout 1, 2, and 3 was that there are 'boring' perks, i.e the perks basically a flat increase to the Skills. This is a valid criticism because, as explained by MisterCaption, Skills are there to do the 'boring' work of numbers and stuff like that, and perks should do the actually unique job i.e advantage, bonus, extra, exploit, endeavor etc etc that merely having high skills won't be able to do, like Sniper and Slayer perk of Fallout 1&2. One of the absolute improvement that New Vegas did is by completely eliminating the 'boring perks' from the list, and instead we have all the unique ones that no high amount of skills alone would be able to do, like Shotgun Surgeon, Sneering Imperialist, Spray N' Pray, and Silent Running.
Basically what @JO'Geran said, and in addition there's not even an actual unique dialogue like in NV (but that's just Emil being a shitty writer he is). Also, I can't see how the fuck would they be able to "encourage players to put points into perks that allow them to access specific parts of the game." at all. The old system worked just fine and right to do that, i.e specializing and making a character with an actual role to play WOULD allow them to access specific parts of the game, provided you have the right skills and taking the relevant perks for that. If anything, by imposing level limit to each perks the way they did with FO4's perk system, there would be problems of not being able to do enough damage because of level scaling since the skills that should have do that job is now nonexistent, which in turn encourage grinding and taking perks irrelevant to the role you wanted to play so you would be able to take that next level of the relevant perk, and in turn every character ended up being the same etc etc and this is already clearly explained by MisterCaption.
I wouldn't call 'that' a 'neutral' point of view, but rather an uninformed/ignorant point of view. I know of P&P RPGs/DnD from just words of mouth/textual description, and never truly played one myself, but from what I get and from playing cRPGs, one should know that 'any proper character development' in NOT JUST Fallout game, but also any RPGs ever, is NOT ONLY based on dialogue (and unique dialogue for that matter), but ALSO from the very start of character creation screen/sheet. In any actual RPGs ever, if you want to role-play a role, you HAD to put the points into the corresponding stats AND skills. You want to role-play a farmer? Put the points into the STR and END stats so you can lift pretty heavy weight when plowing your farm/bringing what you sow to the silos, PER to notice when a plant is ripe to sow and INT to know if it's ACTUALLY ripe to sow, and then you ought to had the right skills when you plow the farm field/properly harvesting the ripe plants. You want to role-play a scientist? Put the sufficient amount of points into INT so you could learn the Chemistry and/or Biology skills if you want the characters to actually know what they are doing, etc etc. But that's not the end of it, because the system also had to be designed in such a way that the world, the NPCs, the ENTIRE game would properly react to the fact that you build a farmer/scientist, like if you meet a fellow farmer you get the chance to correct him in the way he plow his fields, or if you meet a fellow scientist you get the chance to inform him that bromelain has to be kept in ~4 degrees of celcius or the enzymatic activity would be lowered/the protein becomes denaturated, provided you had the right stats/skills to do it. And then, the NPCs (and subsequently, the world/the ENTIRE game) react properly when you take that chance, i.e they would thank you for helping them improving and getting better, or if you are creative enough you could make the NPCs with such an arrogant attitude, they would say, "Fuck you!" for telling them what to do and end up with a plow/hydrochloric acid to the face.
You 'see' this aspect as a mean to skip (according to you) 'bullshit' quests. Thing is, cRPGs aren't like P&P RPGs at all (and some people argued that they shouldn't be), so that's just how they were fundamentally designed, from the very basic form of their system. You could argue this skills checks and that are just some means to skip some 'bullshit' quests, but that depends on how creative the designers and programmers work together to make a properly working skills checks that went through a quests in a way that 'makes sense' (in context of the game itself).
On the other hand, one couldn't just deliberately call something (whether it's an FPS, or action games) an 'RPG' just because. The core concept of the game, the foundation at which it was built, the structure which gave it form a.k.a the system and the rules MUST be designed so that it would work as an ACTUAL RPG, instead of requiring players to play-pretend (LARPing). The older games worked this way by simulating P&P RPGs, but nowadays we are starting to have a group of people (especially in the Codex) who argued that, since cRPG wouldn't ever work the way P&P RPGs did, one should strive to design a system that doesn't simulate P&P RPGs, but still tried it best to prioritize character's skills instead of player's skills.
But that's just how you see it. An actual RPGs aren't the 'player expressing their own identity', but the characters, made by the player, expressing themselves based on the stats, skills, and perks they had.
Nah, creating a whole other person is also another mean of escaping reality. You had your preferences, yes, but Bethesda dared to call Fallout 4 an 'RPG', and therefore it SHOULD OBJECTIVELY be judged by its ability to provide the player an opportunity to create a whole new person, based on the system they had designed. And in this regard, compared to its predecessor, Fallout 4 sucks balls.
That 'someone' ought to had their own strengths and weaknesses, and it shouldn't be YOU, the player, but rather the character, the someone, you created. Sure, you are the one who's choosing the dialogue option, but it SHOULD be the character's own wits and wagers that decided WHAT dialogue option is available and (I assume as in the case of P&P RPGs) if the option chosen succeeded in achieving the desired results (or failed to do so).
I'm not sure about others, but that's absolutely not what I'm trying to do. In fact, what I want is for people to know where I'm coming from and because I know what they haven't or did not, then I expect them to do more research and learn more what they think they know, and I'm also to do the same if they could provide me with a valid argument as to why what I think isn't exactly what I think it is.
That's not what happening here, at all. Look again at what @JO'Geran said. I'm sure you heard it already, but we have no problem whatsoever with people having fun with Fallout 4 despite they never know about Fallout 1. Again, I'm not sure about others, but in no way I wanted to do that, but instead I wanted to educate where Fallout is originated from, and why F4 is such a disappointment. RPGs are such a neverending topic, as evidenced by how RPG Codex would repeated ask, "What is an RPG?", and even though they meant is as a joke, we all know there would be a neverending discussion to that question.
BUT!, chances are higher that anyone who played Fallout 1 Day One, and would most likely play something similar, i.e other cRPGs, would know more about "What is an RPG?" than a player who barely know what an RPG and played Fallout 4 on Day One, without any knowledge of previous entry at all.
What I'm looking for is a game where you can properly create a character with their own strengths and weaknesses, and then see the character go on through the world to do something they can do and not do something they can't do. And when my character did what they can do, I want to see the world, the ENTIRE game, react properly to it. For that to happen, the game has to have a system that accommodate the opportunity for any of that. Can Fallout 4 allow me to create a character with their own strengths and weaknesses? Maybe, I don't know, I haven't played Fallout 4 and never will.
But let's get back to the initial argument I brought up:
So far, all of your arguments, like this:
are actually subjective, opinionated viewpoint. Why? Because you barely address my points (actually, MisterCaption's points) about GAME DESIGNS. Your sentences including stuff like, "While I simply see.....", "Listen, the way I apply what an RPG is and isn't is completely different to yours.", they barely touch the topic of fundamental game designs. Unless you are fairly young or fairly new to the world of video gaming, anyone who's been in and around the time video gaming and the roots from which it grew, like MisterCaption, should know that game designs is what dictates the genre, NOT player preferences or whatsoever.
Hey, don't put words into my mouth. I'm not the one saying how, "perk system is objectively worse", I'm saying "it doesn't work in RPGs". Doesn't work =/= objectively worse.
What is it with people who tried to defend Bethesda these days? Why is criticisms = hate in your eyes?
Except, the guy had pretty solid arguments rooted in objective topic like GAME DESIGNS, and here you are trying to insist how, "It's all subjective, guys!".
Last edited:
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, by "one's own preference for how one should play", I mean "how a person, who likes RPGs, in the context of the Fallout series and similar, thinks how an RPG should work, according to them". You're reading the sentence literally, but I guess you can't be blamed when English isn't your native tongue.
So we're using definitions outside the context of Fallout? Ok, sure, but, again, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.
To dmonstrate my point, think about what this whole paragraph is trying to prove; you're interpretation of the previous systems advantages. There are multiple ways in which this system could be viewed as a used, and your idea is one of many ways which demonstrates how you the system allows character development.
My previous comments was just trying to illustrate how I view the system, while yours is a completely different reading of how it benefits the game.
For dialogue that involves skills, at least in the case of NV, it is already pre-listed; non of it is hidden. The opposite side of the spectrum is perks, where you can only access the dialogue if you have a specific perk.
Most of your examples are damage buffs or increase the effectiveness of different systems, that, IMO, only unique aspect is it's affect on dialogue.
That's definitely a fair point, but it's one that can be fixed by mods.
In the context of Fallout, the game only acknowledges the skills/perks through either skill checks or dialogue, which the world doesn't even react to for the former, so any meaningful character development (in the context of skills/perks) is only felt through dialogue.
I don't really understand the sentence "best to prioritise character's skills instead of the player's skills". So, your saying it's best to favour a character's skills, even though the player IS said character?
Anyway, this is simply an interpretation of how I view parts of the old system, another example of a different view for the same system we're discussing.
Again, you're reading the sentence literally. Here's an annotation:
"Admittedly, the Fallout series, as a whole, uses a majority of its perks for unique dialogue, so the player can express their own [the character they're playing] identity."
The statement is supposed to be an umbrella term so it can include all interpretations of systems within the Fallout games.
Again, it depends on what one terms an RPG to be. You're definition alone isn't the single correct one, and I feel each game should be based on their own merits, not the precedents set by prior games.
A RPG, and any genre for that matter, only succeeds on how you define what said genre is about, and for me, all Fallout games completely flourish in this regard.
So you're telling me I can't use any RPGs to put myself into the game? I'm not allowed to interpret an RPG the way I want because you're definition is the only correct one? I play the game for different reasons to you, mainly because most Fallout games offer a fucktonne of narratives for me to enjoy, but discounting what I use the games for because it doesn't align with your definition is ridiculous.
Likewise, I want you to do the same thing when considering my opinion. But "That 'someone' ought to had their own strengths and weaknesses, and it shouldn't be YOU, the player, but rather the character, the someone, you created" suggests otherwise.
You want to "educate" where Fallout came from, but the way in which you convey the information isn't the right way for newcomers. You can't assume they hate Fallout 4 because it isn't an RPG in your eyes, you have to just voice your distaste of such a product in a non-bashful and reasonable way. Doing so will ensure that you don't scare off those you can direct to Fallout 1/2/NV.
Again, this is your opinion, and I fully take it into account when discussing this sort of stuff with you, just like how I expect the same from your end.
Yes, that may be true, but my point isn't about how the design of the game might be flawed, it is simply trying to point out that the success of said designs and systems depends on how the player perceives them. I could comfortably say that the perk system in Fallout 4 allows me enough personal freedom in how I develop my character, even after player New Vegas, but your opinion is the exact opposite. Stating it is a fact it doesn't work, IN YOUR OPINION, from the arguments of MisterCaptions video, is a fallicious statement even without diving into the meat of the argument itself; you have your opinion, and I have my opinion, so it's all subjective.
Well, "Fact = the perk system doesn't work properly in just about any RPG ever" does come off that way, considering that Fallout is an RPG series.
I'm not defending Bethesda in the slightest, I'm just trying to refute your claim that "Fact = the perk system doesn't work properly in just about any RPG ever". Don't make assumptions because I disagree with you, it comes off as an elitist attitude. Plus, the statement is correct; you do hate Fallout 4, so why throw the tag of "Bethtard" and "criticism = hate" on me?
You do realise that personal bias can affect how a person might view something? Game Design isn't an objective when the person dissecting the thing itself already hates said system. It's called "confirmation bias", and it hugely affects how a system can be percieved.
Overall, let's just agree to disagree; I'm a bit worried this discussion might produce massive walls of text that will go on forever.
EDIT: Sorry for messing up the quoting thing, I honestly don't know how to do it.
Last edited:
Black Angel
Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus
How the hell am I even supposed to know that? What is it among the "one's own preference for how one should play" you just said that would translates so specifically into "how a person, who likes RPGs, in the context of the Fallout series and similar, thinks how an RPG should work, according to them"? Maybe next time you should have been more specific, then, because I think even the most fluent English speaker would mistake "one's own preference for how one should play" as "Mario is an RPG because you are role-playing Mario" or, to make it easier, "Fallout 4 is an RPG because you are role-playing the Sole Survivor".
Yes, and it's completely valid to judge the RPGness of a game (in this case, Fallout 4) based on what is there to say and know about the genre as a whole, i.e comparing it to other RPGs.
I'm merely trying to point out that it isn't exactly right to just outright dismissing the purpose of perks and skills being one and the same, and to do that I brought another game as an example to reinforce the fact that perks =/= skills.
Are you really this serious in trying to prove how everything is subjective? Geez, man.
No, it's a general consensus on an explanations and definitions of how things work. Here, you're basically trying to pass off the idea that a skills = perks. Except, that's not how it works. I'm bringing up the proper explanation and definition of how it works, but instead you dismissed it as my interpretation, but it's not. Because if we're to go by the way you see things, then 1 + 1 =/= 2 in scientific math, because (according to you) 1 + 1 = 2 is just my/someone's interpretation.
Yes, but still you haven't properly addressed the other arguments that perk system of Fallout 4 objectively doesn't work in an RPG. Should I repeat the points, one by one?
See, you're getting a hang of it. By the very same definition, like the explanations I gave, just about anyone would be able to handle a gun, doesn't matter if they have 10 points or 100 in Guns skills. BUT! Not everybody could have the endeavor to perform a shotgun shot that ignore xx damage threshold (and in an RPG, nobody should).
So, objectively, perks =/= skills.
That, right there, what you're already saying is why perks =/= skills. Effectiveness of different system, like manipulating damage threshold, an damage buffs (or nerfs) against specific target, and even completely eliminating a factor from affecting what you're doing, that by itself is unique and in no way mere skills would be able to do. Skills by itself is an entirely its own system, and by itself is designed to take care of the boring work of increasing numbers and stuff like that. Again, this has been clearly explained by MisterCaption.
Except.... it can't. Well, maybe, it can be. But it's proven extremely difficult, might as well make a new game from scratch, as discussed in this thread.
False, because the game also acknowledge the skills by only allowing you to have ~95% chance to hit when you have pretty high amount of weapon skills (like 75-100 amount of skill), and the game also acknowledge when you have perks such as Silent Running by not breaking your sneaking attempt while running.
Hell, we also haven't even bring the STR requirement when breaking locks with a crowbar, or having enough PER to notice a trap.
And I don't understand WHY are you insisting that the player = character in RPGs. What you're saying basically means I, a prospective biochemist, can't in any way or capacity, create a character with absolutely NO knowledge in biochemistry at all, or because I created a dumb character, that means I am a dumb player.
What the fuck, man.
No. You were saying that "my character is always a projection of me in an escape of reality, while your character is a whole other person which you create."
Both might work in an RPG, except Fallout 4 doesn't work as an RPG and, frankly, now that I think about it how the fuck would you properly "create a projection of yourself in an escape of reality" in Fallout 4? Unless you can actually perform all of the perks of Fallout 4, I don't see how one would ever be able to "create a projection of themselves in an escape of reality". For example, since I don't know what you are capable of and what you are not, I'm a prospective biochemistry. I studied and know quite a lot about enzyme, and its activity. On the other hand, my physical chemistry sucked, especially since I also sucked in Physics 101. If I'm to "create a projection of me" in Fallout 4 based on those strength and weakness, then I should be only able to increase my knowledge in biochemistry (by taking the relevant perks) and apply those knowledge, and should never be able to increase my knowledge in physical chemistry (not being able to take the relevant perks) nor even be able to apply it. However, the way Fallout 4 perks system works, after taking a level of Biochemistry perk, I can't take it again immediately the next level up, so I would be forced to take a level of Physical Chemistry, and you actually can! It's.... it's just messed up. Let it go, man. This type of thing worked in Borderlands, but not (and never will) in Fallout.
Yeah, but, again, the player =/= the character in RPGs. Or rather, the characters doesn't always necessarily mean to depict the player.
Except, by Fallout 3 its system is already fundamentally different to that of Fallout 1&2.
And you still haven't even address the topic of system and game design.
There are many subgenre/types of RPGs, like cRPGs, JRPGs, ARPGs, TRPGs, Blobbers, Dungeon Crawlers etc etc, but objectively most, if not ALL, of them had one common thing = character's stats and skills are the only thing that matter and the only thing that solely drive the gameplay. ARPGs are probably the only type of RPGs to kind of limit character's skills and allow a deliberate amount of player's skills to affect the gameplay (and Obsidian correctly list Fallout: New Vegas as an Action-RPG on Steam
).You're not wrong. It's okay to make exception, some times. There are beauty in all things, and wisdom in everything. But, in the end, I can't help but feel like this is probably the stupidest mindset ever plaguing the whole world. As living beings, we ought to strive for betterment of ourselves and to look forward for better days. When we start accepting mediocre, or hell even worse, quality out of something but STILL had to pay the same amount of price (or even increasing ones) to enjoy and experience it, you know something is wrong.
I guess this mindset stemmed from the fact that, for you, criticisms = hate. It's okay, you can cure it. Once upon a time, I had that mindset. I would twitch my eyes and internally screams in frustration every time someone criticize what I love. Nowadays, I only do that when I see someone would spew shit like how Fallout 1 doesn't cut it for them as an 'RPG', without even trying to properly argue from the aspect of fundamental designs.
That's absolutely dumb. That's like saying a fucking FPS/Shooter game is a fucking platformer just because.
There ought to be a line which draws and distinct one genre from the other, and how a game would actually fall in what genre is based on their, again, fundamental designs.
A game fundamentally designed as a shooter with levels designed akin to that of a platformer doesn't mean the game is now also a platformer.
See my explanation above. The thing about RPGs is, you had a vast amount of freedom to create any characters you want, even some character like yourself! But back to the initial argument, unfortunately Fallout 4 with all of its fundamental designs (like the perk system) just can't and won't properly work as an RPG, since you can't at all create a character with its own strength and weaknesses, because the balance was messed up in a way that, eventually, ALL of the characters you made would be one and the same.
Again, no one here is saying that kind of shit. If anything, your interpretation is extremely flawed because to you, players = characters. Like I said, in any RPGs ever, a character created doesn't necessarily means it resembles or, in any way, depict or even project the player. The more proper wording would be that the player was placed in the world through the character, and the player NOT ONLY experience the strengths of that character but ALSO the weaknesses imposed upon said character.
Your reading comprehension, mate. Are you having a bad day? Had you enough rests?
Nope. It means what it means. Here's the thing: we had no problem with how you're seeing things. We're arguing that, with all the fundamental designs upon which Fallout 4 was founded, it doesn't work as an RPG, and we had gave you the list of why(s). However, you're trying so HARD to dismiss all the arguments based on the premise that someone might not have played the previous entry. That's not our problem. We don't invalidate the fact they had fun, but we invalidate the fact they saw Fallout 4 as an RPG.
Is there something wrong with that? Or are you just spewing, "Waaaah, waaaah, you're wrong! WRONG!"?
Bullshit. Show me then where I only TL;DRing my arguments down to, "I'm right, and you're wrong."
I gave you all of the arguments rooted in game designs, but all you can provide to me as counter-arguments are, "But they couldn't have known about that! This and that are this way and that way because that's just how I see it!"
But am I NOT doing that? Am I not non-bashful enough, here? Where the fuck am I name-calling or TL;DRing my arguments down to, "Fallout 4 is shit"?
There's no success achieved in designing a shooter, but calling it an 'RPG'.
Ftfy.
Well, your initial assumption of what I was saying missed the mark, but going by this without fixing it, you STILL haven't addressed my point about game designs. All you can spout out was how this is subjective and that is subjective, barely touch the topic of what is discussed.
Tell that to yourself, mate.
Umm.............. when did I ever throw that tag on you?
Did you even take a look at all that you've said?
Again, tell that to yourself.
Where did I ever state that, "I HATE FALLOUT 4'S PERK SYSTEM!!!!!!!"?
I even fucking stated that the system worked for a shooter. If you could easily infer from me saying how Fallout 4's perk system doesn't work in any RPGs ever = I hate the system, then you SHOULD'VE been able to infer from me saying how it worked in shooters = I love the system, and you know how fucking ridiculous it sounds, right?
You should've done that from the moment I brought out 'game designs', instead of trying to pass off me and MisterCaption's dissection of Fallout 4 based on its' designs as mere 'subjective opinion'.
Last edited:
How the hell am I even supposed to know that? What is it among the "one's own preference for how one should play" you just said that would translates so specifically into "how a person, who likes RPGs, in the context of the Fallout series and similar, thinks how an RPG should work, according to them"? Maybe next time you should have been more specific, then, because I think even the most fluent English speaker would mistake "one's own preference for how one should play" as "Mario is an RPG because you are role-playing Mario" or, to make it easier, "Fallout 4 is an RPG because you are role-playing the Sole Survivor".
Yes, and it's completely valid to judge the RPGness of a game (in this case, Fallout 4) based on what is there to say and know about the genre as a whole, i.e comparing it to other RPGs.
I'm merely trying to point out that it isn't exactly right to just outright dismissing the purpose of perks and skills being one and the same, and to do that I brought another game as an example to reinforce the fact that perks =/= skills.
Are you really this serious in trying to prove how everything is subjective? Geez, man.
No, it's a general consensus on an explanations and definitions of how things work. Here, you're basically trying to pass off the idea that a skills = perks. Except, that's not how it works. I'm bringing up the proper explanation and definition of how it works, but instead you dismissed it as my interpretation, but it's not. Because if we're to go by the way you see things, then 1 + 1 =/= 2 in scientific math, because (according to you) 1 + 1 = 2 is just my/someone's interpretation.
Yes, but still you haven't properly addressed the other arguments that perk system of Fallout 4 objectively doesn't work in an RPG. Should I repeat the points, one by one?
See, you're getting a hang of it. By the very same definition, like the explanations I gave, just about anyone would be able to handle a gun, doesn't matter if they have 10 points or 100 in Guns skills. BUT! Not everybody could have the endeavor to perform a shotgun shot that ignore xx damage threshold (and in an RPG, nobody should).
So, objectively, perks =/= skills.
That, right there, what you're already saying is why perks =/= skills. Effectiveness of different system, like manipulating damage threshold, an damage buffs (or nerfs) against specific target, and even completely eliminating a factor from affecting what you're doing, that by itself is unique and in no way mere skills would be able to do. Skills by itself is an entirely its own system, and by itself is designed to take care of the boring work of increasing numbers and stuff like that. Again, this has been clearly explained by MisterCaption.
Except.... it can't. Well, maybe, it can be. But it's proven extremely difficult, might as well make a new game from scratch, as discussed in this thread.
False, because the game also acknowledge the skills by only allowing you to have ~95% chance to hit when you have pretty high amount of weapon skills (like 75-100 amount of skill), and the game also acknowledge when you have perks such as Silent Running by not breaking your sneaking attempt while running.
Hell, we also haven't even bring the STR requirement when breaking locks with a crowbar, or having enough PER to notice a trap.
And I don't understand WHY are you insisting that the player = character in RPGs. What you're saying basically means I, a prospective biochemist, can't in any way or capacity, create a character with absolutely NO knowledge in biochemistry at all, or because I created a dumb character, that means I am a dumb player.
What the fuck, man.
No. You were saying that "my character is always a projection of me in an escape of reality, while your character is a whole other person which you create."
Both might work in an RPG, except Fallout 4 doesn't work as an RPG and, frankly, now that I think about it how the fuck would you properly "create a projection of yourself in an escape of reality" in Fallout 4? Unless you can actually perform all of the perks of Fallout 4, I don't see how one would ever be able to "create a projection of themselves in an escape of reality". For example, since I don't know what you are capable of and what you are not, I'm a prospective biochemistry. I studied and know quite a lot about enzyme, and its activity. On the other hand, my physical chemistry sucked, especially since I also sucked in Physics 101. If I'm to "create a projection of me" in Fallout 4 based on those strength and weakness, then I should be only able to increase my knowledge in biochemistry (by taking the relevant perks) and apply those knowledge, and should never be able to increase my knowledge in physical chemistry (not being able to take the relevant perks) nor even be able to apply it. However, the way Fallout 4 perks system works, after taking a level of Biochemistry perk, I can't take it again immediately the next level up, so I would be forced to take a level of Physical Chemistry, and you actually can! It's.... it's just messed up. Let it go, man. This type of thing worked in Borderlands, but not (and never will) in Fallout.
Yeah, but, again, the player =/= the character in RPGs. Or rather, the characters doesn't always necessarily mean to depict the player.
Except, by Fallout 3 its system is already fundamentally different to that of Fallout 1&2.
And you still haven't even address the topic of system and game design.
There are many subgenre/types of RPGs, like cRPGs, JRPGs, ARPGs, TRPGs, Blobbers, Dungeon Crawlers etc etc, but objectively most, if not ALL, of them had one common thing = character's stats and skills are the only thing that matter and the only thing that solely drive the gameplay. ARPGs are probably the only type of RPGs to kind of limit character's skills and allow a deliberate amount of player's skills to affect the gameplay (and Obsidian correctly list Fallout: New Vegas as an Action-RPG on Steam
You're not wrong. It's okay to make exception, some times. There are beauty in all things, and wisdom in everything. But, in the end, I can't help but feel like this is probably the stupidest mindset ever plaguing the whole world. As living beings, we ought to strive for betterment of ourselves and to look forward for better days. When we start accepting mediocre, or hell even worse, quality out of something but STILL had to pay the same amount of price (or even increasing ones) to enjoy and experience it, you know something is wrong.
I guess this mindset stemmed from the fact that, for you, criticisms = hate. It's okay, you can cure it. Once upon a time, I had that mindset. I would twitch my eyes and internally screams in frustration every time someone criticize what I love. Nowadays, I only do that when I see someone would spew shit like how Fallout 1 doesn't cut it for them as an 'RPG', without even trying to properly argue from the aspect of fundamental designs.
That's absolutely dumb. That's like saying a fucking FPS/Shooter game is a fucking platformer just because.
There ought to be a line which draws and distinct one genre from the other, and how a game would actually fall in what genre is based on their, again, fundamental designs.
A game fundamentally designed as a shooter with levels designed akin to that of a platformer doesn't mean the game is now also a platformer.
See my explanation above. The thing about RPGs is, you had a vast amount of freedom to create any characters you want, even some character like yourself! But back to the initial argument, unfortunately Fallout 4 with all of its fundamental designs (like the perk system) just can't and won't properly work as an RPG, since you can't at all create a character with its own strength and weaknesses, because the balance was messed up in a way that, eventually, ALL of the characters you made would be one and the same.
Again, no one here is saying that kind of shit. If anything, your interpretation is extremely flawed because to you, players = characters. Like I said, in any RPGs ever, a character created doesn't necessarily means it resembles or, in any way, depict or even project the player. The more proper wording would be that the player was placed in the world through the character, and the player NOT ONLY experience the strengths of that character but ALSO the weaknesses imposed upon said character.
Your reading comprehension, mate. Are you having a bad day? Had you enough rests?
Nope. It means what it means. Here's the thing: we had no problem with how you're seeing things. We're arguing that, with all the fundamental designs upon which Fallout 4 was founded, it doesn't work as an RPG, and we had gave you the list of why(s). However, you're trying so HARD to dismiss all the arguments based on the premise that someone might not have played the previous entry. That's not our problem. We don't invalidate the fact they had fun, but we invalidate the fact they saw Fallout 4 as an RPG.
Is there something wrong with that? Or are you just spewing, "Waaaah, waaaah, you're wrong! WRONG!"?
Bullshit. Show me then where I only TL;DRing my arguments down to, "I'm right, and you're wrong."
I gave you all of the arguments rooted in game designs, but all you can provide to me as counter-arguments are, "But they couldn't have known about that! This and that are this way and that way because that's just how I see it!"
But am I NOT doing that? Am I not non-bashful enough, here? Where the fuck am I name-calling or TL;DRing my arguments down to, "Fallout 4 is shit"?
There's no success achieved in designing a shooter, but calling it an 'RPG'.
Ftfy.
Well, your initial assumption of what I was saying missed the mark, but going by this without fixing it, you STILL haven't addressed my point about game designs. All you can spout out was how this is subjective and that is subjective, barely touch the topic of what is discussed.
Tell that to yourself, mate.
Umm.............. when did I ever throw that tag on you?
Did you even take a look at all that you've said?
Again, tell that to yourself.
Where did I ever state that, "I HATE FALLOUT 4'S PERK SYSTEM!!!!!!!"?
I even fucking stated that the system worked for a shooter. If you could easily infer from me saying how Fallout 4's perk system doesn't work in any RPGs ever = I hate the system, then you SHOULD'VE been able to infer from me saying how it worked in shooters = I love the system, and you know how fucking ridiculous it sounds, right?
You should've done that from the moment I brought out 'game designs', instead of trying to pass off me and MisterCaption's dissection of Fallout 4 based on its' designs as mere 'subjective opinion'.
Thank you for insulting me even though I did nothing of the sort to you.
Let's just start with a simple question:
Why do I consider Fallout 4 an RPG and I feel its perk system allows me player freedom?
Why is that, even if I have played New Vegas? Am I wrong?
You're constantly drilling home the point that critiscm = fact, and I'm just trying to refute that in the sense that all interpretations are valid.
I also assume you hate the new system because you claim it doesn't work in an RPG, when I consider Fallout 4 to be one.
On the "non-bashful and respectful" comment, I meant in general on the site, sorry for not specifying.
For the "character = player" thing, I'm not trying state they should be the same thing, and in regards to "I don't really understand the sentence "best to prioritise character's skills instead of the player's skills". So, your saying it's best to favour a character's skills, even though the player IS said character?", it was actually just a question because it didn't really make sense, to me, as you worded like they are two seperate entities in the same world.
Going over this wall of massive text will take a while, and honestly, I'm just not going to do it because it'll take too long.
Thanks for the nice discussion, no hard feelings btw, sorry if I offended you with anything I said.
Black Angel
Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus
And thank you for misrepresenting my words, even though I did my best to explain to you how such is such.
You 'feel'. Well, that ain't wrong.
But you know what's wrong with you? You are trying to dismiss people discussing the fact that, based on game designs, Fallout 4 doesn't work as an RPG. Here's the difference between you and me: You've mentioned that you're arguing based on what you 'feel', well I'm arguing based on what I 'think', and what I 'think' can be backed up by facts regarding game designs. Can one properly argue based on what they 'feel' about game designs? Maybe. But, again, like you said, it's one's own preference on what game designs they liked. However, as I mentioned, the game designs is what dictates the genre, NOT what player preferred or whatsoever.
This is absolutely ridiculous. How the hell am I supposed to improve if I keep seeing criticism = somebody's subjective preferred opinion which I could dismiss so easily based on my subjective preferred opinion? What's the point of criticism if not to help the criticized to improve? How the fuck could anybody criticize something based on what they LIKE?
What this review made by members of NMA tried to do, and also the review made by MisterCaption, is to carefully explain all the stuff based on game designs, which, again I try to remind you, is legit objective concern because, again, in no way a game designed as a shooter would end up as a platformer just because.
And since the members of NMA and MisterCaption had played the game for God knows how long, carefully examined the way things work, and we even have modders on board to literally dissect the game to its' very core system, all of their work comes to the conclusion that Fallout 4 doesn't properly work as an RPG, and based on the frame of references lying everywhere and not just the previous games, the conclusion can be accepted as a fact.
And then here you are trying to argue how the conclusion made by members of NMA and MisterCaption, even when their method of coming to such conclusion is legit and pretty accurate especially since they are pretty knowledgeable with the entire material of the genre, as mere 'subjective opinion based on their preferences'.
Again, you can't just call a game an RPG without carefully considering the fundamental system upon which it's built.
You know what, here's a tip: try to play more games and more RPGs. Play Arcanum, play Planescape: Torment, play Underrail. If after playing all of that, you don't feel what you feel with Fallout 4 (hell, you even 'feel' that you had more 'freedom' playing FO4 than New Vegas), then, and ONLY then I can safely conclude, that you don't like RPGs.
Nah, I should be the one saying that.
I had pretty good laugh at your misunderstanding and misrepresenting my words. Also on how persistent you are trying to stand by your initial arguments, despite it being completely irrelevant with what's being discussed.
Unfortunately genres can't be chosen just by feeling. For example, no one will call Jazz Rock n'Roll just because they feel like it is Rock n'Roll.
Genres aren't attributed by what those things have in common, why aren't Doom games Platformers even though you can jump into platforms? Why aren't FIFA games "Manager" Sport games even though you can assign tactics, and players to various positions, assign formation and even have some modes where you can form your own team with players from several teams? Why aren't Thief games First Person Shooters even though they are in first person and you can shoot enemies with different weapons? Why aren't Pokemon games Fighting games even though the main objective is using your characters to battle and fight other characters? Why isn't Fallout 4 a RPG even though you can level up, do quests and have dialogue? The examples are endless.
I said it around here before a few times but I will say it again, RPGs are all about the character's skills, abilities and limitations, not player's skills, abilities and limitations.
I will quote a post I made here before when someone asked "Where's the line between an RPG and an action game?"
The line has always been there since the first roleplaying game and the first adventure game.
First roleplaying game was Dungeons and Dragons (Pen and Paper) and so we can see what a roleplaying game is by looking at how it worked.
Then we can see through history what other RPGs share in common with the first and we can define what a RPG is by seeing what all of those games share in common. And no, controlling a character, leveling said character up or do quests are not the only things that make a RPG. Pretty much 99% of games have you controlling a character in some way, today most games have some kind of leveling up and/or quests, but that does not make a RPG, those are elements that were first encountered in roleplaying games, but are not what made that genre being a specific genre.
We also need to deconstruct all of the RPG genres too, because RPG has subgenres:
-The character or characters you roleplay use their own skills, strengths, abilities, weaknesses, and faults to interact with anything in the world. A RPG uses the character to interact with the game world, not the player. That is the fundamental rule of what a RPG is. From P&P to cRPG, Action RPG, Tactical RPG, jRPG, etc, It is always what they all have in common.
Your character(s) have stats and values and those are used in everything (usually using some kind of "dice roll" or RNG), from hitting the enemies to convincing someone that a lie is truth, from unlocking a locked door to sneak past enemies, etc.
People say that what is important in a RPG is good choices and story, a good and reactive world, believable characters, good combat system, action, dialogue, and whatever else people prefer, but that is still not what a RPG is. That is all what makes a good RPG for each of us, not what makes a RPG.
For example World of Darkness RPG system didn't have character levels, characters do not level up. World of Darkness is a RPG and has one of my favorite RPG systems ever (it is the same used in Vampire the Masquerade cRPGs too). So leveling up is not what a RPG is.
For example people say that a RPG needs quests. But quests are just objectives, and pretty much most games have objectives in one way or another. Quests are not what makes a RPG.
Etc.
Those things are not what makes the RPG genre but what enriches it instead.
TL,DR:
What all RPG genres and games have in common since the first one was created is: It's the characters stats and values that are used to interact with everything in the game world, not the player skill.
Sorry for derailing the thread... But I still don't understand why people keep making it sound like it's hard to know what a RPG is when it's the same it always was in any platform (computer/video games and P&P) and in any subgenre (cRPG, Tactical RPG, jRPG, Action RPG, etc)... Character stats are used for everything in the game, the players only decide how the character act while the rest is out of their control.
First roleplaying game was Dungeons and Dragons (Pen and Paper) and so we can see what a roleplaying game is by looking at how it worked.
Then we can see through history what other RPGs share in common with the first and we can define what a RPG is by seeing what all of those games share in common. And no, controlling a character, leveling said character up or do quests are not the only things that make a RPG. Pretty much 99% of games have you controlling a character in some way, today most games have some kind of leveling up and/or quests, but that does not make a RPG, those are elements that were first encountered in roleplaying games, but are not what made that genre being a specific genre.
We also need to deconstruct all of the RPG genres too, because RPG has subgenres:
- cRPG
- Action RPG
- Tactical RPG
- jRPG
-The character or characters you roleplay use their own skills, strengths, abilities, weaknesses, and faults to interact with anything in the world. A RPG uses the character to interact with the game world, not the player. That is the fundamental rule of what a RPG is. From P&P to cRPG, Action RPG, Tactical RPG, jRPG, etc, It is always what they all have in common.
Your character(s) have stats and values and those are used in everything (usually using some kind of "dice roll" or RNG), from hitting the enemies to convincing someone that a lie is truth, from unlocking a locked door to sneak past enemies, etc.
People say that what is important in a RPG is good choices and story, a good and reactive world, believable characters, good combat system, action, dialogue, and whatever else people prefer, but that is still not what a RPG is. That is all what makes a good RPG for each of us, not what makes a RPG.
For example World of Darkness RPG system didn't have character levels, characters do not level up. World of Darkness is a RPG and has one of my favorite RPG systems ever (it is the same used in Vampire the Masquerade cRPGs too). So leveling up is not what a RPG is.
For example people say that a RPG needs quests. But quests are just objectives, and pretty much most games have objectives in one way or another. Quests are not what makes a RPG.
Etc.
Those things are not what makes the RPG genre but what enriches it instead.
TL,DR:
What all RPG genres and games have in common since the first one was created is: It's the characters stats and values that are used to interact with everything in the game world, not the player skill.
Sorry for derailing the thread... But I still don't understand why people keep making it sound like it's hard to know what a RPG is when it's the same it always was in any platform (computer/video games and P&P) and in any subgenre (cRPG, Tactical RPG, jRPG, Action RPG, etc)... Character stats are used for everything in the game, the players only decide how the character act while the rest is out of their control.
In what way did I misrepresent what you said? I'm allowed to make assumptions off the basis of how you view things and your prior history, and it's pretty damn clear you hate Fallout 4. If you didn't p, why would you be on this site?
You're literally doing the exact thing you claim I'm doing, by misrepresenting what I'm saying. Do you think saying "I feel" literally means I based my thoughts off of emotion?
Also, you don't think I've read the criticism of Fallout 4 on this site and in videos? Why the fuck would I be here in the first place if I didn't want to see your point of view?
The whole damn point of this discussion is about the validity of calling some randoms guys criticism fact, not whether it is explicitly true or not. If I was doing the latter, then I would've actually discussed it instead of trying to illustrate the subjectivity in MisterCaptions critique.
Where did I state this?
Where do I imply/say any of this?
Game design isn't always objective. What makes an RPG is certainly complex, and it only gets harder when a computer is introduced. I can tell you this: Fallout 4 certainly has choices and consequences, and you CAN make a character with Strengths/Weaknesses. The simplest example would be putting 10 points into STR and none into CHA, which would produce a character who can hit hard and can't talk. Despite having the option to increase these stats, it doesn't mean you have too. You can impose restrictions on yourself to limit the opportunity for an OP character.
Anyway, wouldn't I be more knowledgable on Fallout 4 then yourself since I've actually played through it multiple times, while you haven't even bought it?
What frame of reference? How can you call a tonne of posts with inherent confirmation bias factual?
From what viewpoint did this "legit and pretty accurate" reference base come from? A hatred/disdain for the game, not a neutral viewpoint. This, in turn, could cause confirmation bias, and raise issues with what they are saying. Btw, where did I say it is a "subjective opinion based on their preferences"? Comes of a little bit as cherry picking.
What is the "fundemental system"? The story, how the player interacts with the world?
What I'm saying is "completely irrelevant" because you're missing my entire point. I'm talking about what is a fact and what isn't; this isn't about game design, the perk system or why it's bad, it's about how a criticism ("The expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes."), isn't an objective thing, and how multiple interpretations (opinions) should all be equally counted and valid. All the things I said that sounded like "Everything's subjective yo" were just examples of trying to provide a different viewpoint, even if some of those weren't explicltly my own.
Look, it seems a gross miscommunication of words and implied meanings; you didn't catch on to my arguement, and I thought you got what I was saying, yet we're discussing it anyway. It kind of makes it a bit moot in my eyes; perhaps I was vague, or perhaps your lack of English didn't help, but no one is to blame here.
@CT Phipps loves Fallout 4 and he is here for a while and is quite active, there are a few others that like FO4 around here too, we don't have only raging fanatics that love to hate on the game. Even I don't hate Fallout 4, I consider it boring and can't play much of it in a row, but I don't hate it. My only problems with the whole "Fallout 4" thing is that it is being sold as a RPG and it is not a RPG and that Bethesda doesn't care about lore or making a game that follows on the original Fallout vision and direction of the series (basically they just make whatever they think it is cool even if it goes against everything the previous games tell us, even Bethesda's previous games and sometimes even the same game). I don't rage that people like Fallout 4.
You just ignored my entire post where I define what a RPG is by telling all the RPGs and it's subgenres fundamental mechanics (which is what makes a RPG a RPG) and it is not complex at all, I don't understand why people think it is when all one needs to do is being playing RPGs for a few decades or at least play some RPGs from those decades to see what they are, there is no doubt what a RPG is after someone plays a few different ones, it is the same as someone playing a few platformer games and see what they are right away. People who think it is complex are people who never played many RPGs before.
Choices and consequences are not what defines a RPG, just go play any jRPGs or any Action RPGs or even pretty much 99% of all Tactical RPGs and tell me where do they offer choice and consequences? Your definition of RPG excludes what a RPG really is.
Also my FO4 character does have 10 STR and 1 CHA (I always play a melee and/or Unarmed character) and it talks as well as any other character I can make in FO4. The only thing I can't do is ask for better rewards in some quests or sometimes ask for more information and that is pretty much it. He still uses the same words and sentence for 99% of the game. I even think that having 1 or 10 charisma doesn't even influence how NPCs react to you when they meet you for the first time (which it does in classic Fallout and classic Dungeons and Dragons computer games and P&P for example).
Any RPG ever made (including P&P, cRPG, jRPG, Tactical RPG, Action RPG, Turn RPG, Real Time RPG, Real Time with Pause Commands RPG, etc). You can tell what a Shooter is by playing a few shooters, you will identify right away what is that makes a shooter being a shooter, it is exactly the same with any other game genre, RPGs included.
This legit and pretty accurate reference comes from pretty much every RPG game and RPG subgenre since the first P&P game. All one needs to do is playing some of those games to see why they are RPGs, it is pretty obvious for someone who has been playing RPGs since the 70's, 80's or 90's and to anyone who played any number of different RPG genres. They all have one thing in common which is what defines the RPG genre.
Read my post.
Black Angel
Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus
I said that Fallout 4's perk system doesn't work in RPGs, you said I was saying that the perk system is objectively worse.
On top of that, you keep accusing me of trying to insist how my 'definition' is the correct one and, "EVERYTHING ELSE IS WRONG!!!!!!!!", but you didn't even bother trying to provide counter-argument backed up with proper definition to refute my points, other than "It's all in your head!"
Also, you were accusing me of insulting you. What? Am I not allowed to laugh at ridiculous statement? Oh, well...
And okay, I hate Fallout 4. Does that mean I'm not allowed to criticize it? Does that mean every bits of criticism I made become invalid because, according to you, it's all 'subjective opinion' no matter how much I brought objectively, undeniable arguments rooted in game designs? Again, tell me, where the fuck am I TL;DRing my arguments down to, "Fallout 4 is shit!"? I carefully explained everything, why it wouldn't work the way it was supposed to be etc etc, but nope! You can only insist how it's all "in your head!"
Here's one absolute, undeniable fact that we all shouldn't try to argue: Feelings =/= thoughts.
Maybe next time you shouldn't claim that you 'feel', but instead state that you 'think', and don't just stop there, give proper explanation as to why you 'think' so and so, instead of trying to lazily avoid from properly replying by stating how, "This is how I see it!"
Except you didn't properly address the points made by the reviews, and instead trying to dismiss all of them based on the premise that everything is subjective.
You haven't even properly address his points, how would you supposed to do that when he had pretty strong critique based unarguable things like game designs and comparison to previous iteration and other games?
Again, you should've stopped at stating that you agree to disagree, but NOOOOOOOOO. Instead, you went on this some kind of crusade to prove how everything is subjective.
You were accusing me of trying to drive home that criticisms = fact. From there, I infer that you were implying that criticisms =/= fact. And then, I thought to myself, if criticism is NOT fact, then..... there, I already said what I said. I wouldn't want to repeat it.
False. See @Risewild post about this above. In case you didn't even want to bother looking at it:
Yes, yes, but! Again, you're completely missing the points made by MisterCaption if you can make this kind of conclusion
- The system of leveling in Fallout 4 is, when you level up, you either take a perk or a stat point
- Availability of a level 1 perk is restricted by the points in corresponding stats
- When you finally take a perk, the next level of the perk is restricted by the specific level reached by the character
Yeah, but here I'm basically parroting on what others and MisterCaption said, and also expand upon their explanation so you would understand why you can't just dismiss their reviews as mere subjective opinion that's not valid in telling you why it's not an RPG, and they've played the game, multiple times, too. So?
See @Risewild posts above.
Sure, baby.
Meh. You already dismissed proper definition of 'perks' and 'skills' by general consensus of linguists, as my personal interpretation. You also mistook 'feelings' as one and the same as 'thoughts'.
Whatever.
Last edited:
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Fallout 4 was a fun but underwhelming game.
Deeply deeply underwhelming.
I kept expecting MORE to happen.
Deeply deeply underwhelming.
I kept expecting MORE to happen.
You certainly implied it with this:
"Yes, but still you haven't properly addressed the other arguments that perk system of Fallout 4 objectively doesn't work in an RPG"
"You had your preferences, yes, but Bethesda dared to call Fallout 4 an 'RPG', and therefore it SHOULD OBJECTIVELY be judged by its ability to provide theplayer an opportunity to create a whole new person, based on the system theyhad designed. And in this regard, compared to its predecessor, Fallout 4 sucks balls."
"Both might work in an RPG, except Fallout 4 doesn't work as an RPG"
That's just a couple of examples, but I'm sure you can see how you implied that the new perk system is worse, from "And in this regard, compared to its predecessor, Fallout 4 sucks balls" to "...that the perk system of Fallout 4 objectively doesn't work in an RPG", I can assume that you feel the new system is worse, as Fallout 4's predecessors were RPGs, and Fallout 4 is technically an RPG.
Where did I ever state any of this?
Where did I say any of this?
Anyway, I'm not saying your criticism isn't valid, I'm just saying it never comes from a neutral point of view, so the "objectively, undeniable arguements, rooted in game design" could be affected by confirmation bias, and potentially cause validity problems.
There's a reason why Wikipedia only uses critic views, because they always come from a neutral viewpoint.
Here's one absolute, undeniable fact that we all shouldn't try to argue: Feelings =/= thoughts.
Maybe next time you shouldn't claim that you 'feel', but instead state that you 'think', and don't just stop there, give proper explanation as to why you 'think' so and so, instead of trying to lazily avoid from properly replying by stating how, "This is how I see it!"
Think about this logically, why the fuck would I use the word "feel" if it discounted my arguement (in your eyes, somehow). Sometimes, people use words figuratively unintentionally, like that right there. It was mistake, yes, but let's brush it off and move on.
Also, where did I state the bolded part?
Where did I say any of that?
The sentence was supposed to be "subjectivity of MisterCaption's critique", my mistake.
Also, where did I state any of the bolded part?
Well, I guess I was a bit wrong in how I worded that, but maybe a but more explanation might show what I mean.
I looked up "subjective criticism", and this is what came up:
"Subjective information or writing is based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. It is often considered ill-suited for scenarios like news reporting or decision making in business or politics."
The article also goes further, using a table to dismally types of subjective criticism.
"Newspaper editorials, blogs, biographies, comments on the Internet"
I'm not driving home the point that criticism =/= fact, I'm trying to say, that your criticism, in particular, does not come from a neutral point of view, and could contain confirmation bias.
That can all literally be fixed with mods:
1. http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/13625/?
2. http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/13214/?
While it might make the system entirely open, you'd just have to apply the restrictions yourself.
Where did I do any of this?
I stated "All the things I said that sounded like "Everything's subjective yo" were just examples of trying to provide a different viewpoint, even if some of those weren't explicltly my own." You're not taking into account my explanation.
I'm asking for the library of sources, not the content of said library.
Sure, baby.
Yes, ignore my explanation of things, even though we're not talking about the same thing.
I'll say it again, I'm not discussing the content of the criticism, but the validity of calling it a fact. I've said this multiple times now, and your convinced I'm trying to brush it off.
I would have directly responded to the actual criticism if that was my intention.
Where did I say this? What "linguists"? You and random people on the internet?
What?
Oh, btw, I probably won't respond after this, it's wasted too much of my time already. I mean, I sort of expected a 22 year old to have better things to do then argue with a random troll on the internet, but ok.
Here, have some sources to play and see what a RPG is (this list includes all sub-genres of RPGs but in no specific order):
https://www.gog.com/game/planescape_torment
https://www.amazon.com/Baldurs-Original-Tales-Sword-Coast-Expansion/dp/B00005S8J2
https://www.amazon.com/Baldurs-Gate-Collection-Shadows-Throne-Pc/dp/B00009ECGG
https://www.gog.com/game/arcanum_of_steamworks_and_magick_obscura
https://www.gog.com/game/star_wars_knights_of_the_old_republic_ii_the_sith_lords
https://www.gog.com/game/vampire_the_masquerade_redemption
https://www.gog.com/game/vampire_the_masquerade_bloodlines
https://www.amazon.com/Diablo-PC/dp/B00001IVBL
https://www.amazon.com/Diablo-II-Pc/dp/B00005BV7N
https://www.gog.com/game/ultima_7_complete
https://www.gog.com/game/fallout
https://www.gog.com/game/fallout_2
https://www.gog.com/game/dungeons_dragons_krynn_series
https://www.gog.com/game/dungeons_dragons_ravenloft_series
https://www.gog.com/game/gothic
https://www.gog.com/game/gothic_2_gold_edition
https://www.amazon.com/Final-Fantasy-Anthology-VI-Playstation/dp/B00002R28C
https://www.amazon.com/Final-Fantasy-VII-Playstation/dp/B00000JRSB
https://www.amazon.com/Final-Fantasy-VIII-Playstation/dp/B0000296O5
https://www.amazon.com/Star-Ocean-Till-End-Time-PS2/dp/B00029P9NM
https://www.amazon.com/Chrono-Cross-PlayStation/dp/B00004TC6E
https://www.amazon.com/Chrono-Trigger-Super-Nintendo/dp/B000035Y6N
https://www.amazon.com/Suikoden-Playstation/dp/B00002STPG
https://www.amazon.com/Suikoden-II-Pc/dp/B00001X50L
https://www.gog.com/game/neverwinter_nights_diamond_edition
https://www.gog.com/game/neverwinter_nights_2_complete
https://www.amazon.com/Eye-Beholder-Nintendo-Super-NES/dp/B000035Y06
https://www.amazon.com/Final-Fantasy-Tactics-Playstation/dp/B00002SVWG
https://www.amazon.com/Disgaea-Triple-Play-Collection-PlayStation-3/dp/B011L4CFB0
https://www.amazon.com/Vandal-Hearts-Playstation/dp/B00002SV4N
https://www.amazon.com/Vandal-Hearts-2-Playstation-1-PSX/dp/B00001X50N
https://www.gog.com/game/wasteland_the_classic_original
https://www.gog.com/game/wasteland_2_directors_cut_digital_classic_edition
https://www.gog.com/game/pillars_of_eternity_hero_edition
https://www.gog.com/game/underrail
https://www.gog.com/game/inquisitor
https://www.gog.com/game/tyranny_commander_edition
https://www.gog.com/game/the_age_of_decadence
https://www.gog.com/game/icewind_dale_enhanced_edition
https://www.gog.com/game/icewind_dale_2
https://www.gog.com/game/albion
https://www.gog.com/game/shadowrun_returns
https://www.gog.com/game/shadowrun_dragonfall_directors_cut
https://www.gog.com/game/shadowrun_hong_kong_extended_edition
http://store.steampowered.com/app/377530/
https://www.gog.com/game/jade_empire_special_edition
https://www.gog.com/game/balrum
And the list can go on and on, it's not like RPGs are rare and that is why people do not know what they are or something.
I'll even throw two Bethesda games that are RPGs:
https://www.gog.com/game/the_elder_scrolls_iii_morrowind_goty_edition
https://www.amazon.com/Elder-Scrolls-Chapter-II-Daggerfall-pc/dp/B000BP3E0M
Now if you play at least 5 hours on at least 5 of any of these games (the best would be playing 5 hours of at least 3 games of at least the most popular RPG sub-genres: cRPG, jRPG, Tactical RPG, Action RPG) and you will understand without a doubt what a RPG is and the differences between the sub-genres. If you still don't understand the difference and why Fallout 4 is not a RPG then it is useless to keep discussing this and it is totally idiotic for you to keep saying that Fallout 4 is a RPG when it is obvious you will never know what a RPG is.
You should also try to play or at least read the rules and character creation, combat and settings of these next "sources".
Pen and Paper games, because if you want sources for what a RPG is you also need some P&P:
https://www.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Advanced-Dungeons-Roleplaying/dp/0786903295
https://www.amazon.com/Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Rulebook-Pocket/dp/1601258879
https://www.amazon.com/World-Darkness-White-Wolf-Studio/dp/1588464849
http://falloutpnp.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
https://www.amazon.com/Cyberpunk-2020-Roleplaying-Game-Future/dp/0937279137
https://www.amazon.com/Shadowrun-Fifth-Jason-M-Hardy/dp/1936876515
I considered to not reply, but at least I thought that others might see that post and they will get a nice list of many different RPGs that they might not know about and try them too. It also helps that it has console and PC games. I could have made the list 3 times as long just with the games I could think of at the spot (for example all of the Ultima games instead of just Ultima 7, more FF games, the first SW KoTOR, etc), but I didn't want to make it too long and I also didn't want to take that long making a post that is mostly made with links.
Last edited:
CerberusGate
I should save my game in a whole new slot
On the Final Fantasy games, wouldn't it be better to get the Steam versions?
http://store.steampowered.com/sale/final-fantasy/
(Btw, I am not advocating FFXIII and its... ugh... sequels. I'm just highlighting the bundle).
I hate steam so I don't like to link to it. I only linked Tales of Wuxia in there because it is a RPG that is a bit different from most of that list and I didn't know where to find it besides Steam.
EDIT: Also I heard some of those ports to PC that Steam has for Final Fantasy games really suck compared to the originals.
Black Angel
Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus
Alright, then. Based on this part alone, I'm gonna start ignoring you and your inane ramblings about how, "Everything is subjective".
Welcome to my ignore list, baby. Enjoy your Safe Space™.
On side note, @Hassknecht any tips for starting Daggerfall?
If you accept a warriors guild mission to kill a specific monster in a dungeon and you can't find it, it might be because it bugged out. Sometimes some mission targets will bug and become invisible and you won't be able to see them. You can still be lucky and be able to hit them even when they are invisible though.
EDIT: I feel like playing Daggerfall now. I own it on gog.com so I might download it and play it one of these days. I retried Arena a few months ago but the controls really don't click with me, and I don't remember having controls problems all the times I played Daggerfall so I think it has to have better controls.