I have zero respect for Bethesda now

[Gizmojunk]

The 'rose-tinted glasses' argument doesn't fall flat, and here's why. Even if you are deadass staring at 2 screens playing one of the older ones/NV and one of the other Bethesda titles, you will always overlook the flaws of whichever you like. Not all the flaws, but you will tend to favor the ones you like. Nobody is this distanced from both titles to make an unopinionated, objective call. I understand the revampings aren't true to traditional Fallout, and they didn't succeed in that regard. But that doesn't mean the game can't be good.

This is applying one's own standard to all others. This is saying, "I cannot bend over backwards and rotate my hips, so clearly no one else can". Actually [hyperbole aside] it is tantamount to proclaiming, "I cannot see the subtext here, so you guys are making it up".

It baffles the mind why they would spend the money on a famous name—if almost no one they planned to sell to even knows the name, or would play the series if they did? They could have made it a Deisel Punk TES set in their own 1940's... and been just as successful, and cost them no license fee; and without going out of their way to generate some deservedly earned enmity for trashing a loved series that they didn't give a damn about—except for skinning its pelt to make a new coat for their TES template.

No. Fallout had a bugs. FO3 had bugs. Both games hit their mark. Fallout and FO3 were not even shooting at the same targets... There was no reason to even bother with using the Fallout name—except to exploit its earned reputation—and they offered none of what put Fallout in the top of most RPG hall of fame lists.

Most of their intended market —and a number of their own developers— had never even heard of the games; let alone played them.

Ask yourself if it would be acceptable for a studio [Let's say they exploited hard times at Bethesda and managed to acquire the Elderscrolls IP for their own use] to make the official TES VI as an Age of Wonder's clone?
(The way they made FO3 as an Oblivion clone.)



Could it be a good game? Sure; but does it offer the TES player anything they have come to expect and enjoy from the TES series? Hell no! This is why Just keeping some semblance of the setting is not at a enough.

***But we get the reverse; as though the Age of Wonders 4 turned out to be a FO4 clone. Think about that for moment.... and then realize that they even did this nonsense again to their own FO3. What does the FO3 fan [detached as they are from the true series] get out of FO4? They get a Destiny clone— with RPG-lite elements?

_____________________________________

I see we're now talking about everything except the RNG itself. What an odd way to concede the point. And here I was going to ask for an official definition of roleplaying that even mentions randomness.

The RNG system represents an impartial probability of circumstance. The character's skill and ability development represents their measure of control over their circumstance. In practice it means that the novice fails more often that the expert, and the expert has more reliable skills—but not infallible. Even a professional locksmith can fail to open their own front door with their own keys, sometimes.

Spoiler

...It's called, "Dropping your keys".

The random number represents—effectively all the minutia and circumstance of the dynamic situation [hence it being different for each attempt]. The player's skill is either up to the task or it's not—and it doesn't necessarily mean that they made a mistake. They could fail because the door is swollen, or because somebody tried to pick the lock before years they did... and damaged it. The best silver tongued devil can fail to convince his mark if they have a headache and aren't really paying attention... The exact reason—and it doesn't even need to be shown— does't really matter at all. It is understood that the circumstance was simply against them that time.

This also can influence whether a PC can succeed in time, when time is tight, and they have to act quickly. Here the expert has the advantage over the novice; for their experience will give them the edge regardless of bad circumstance... And that's effectively how it works in real life.

There is no better system for RPG event resolution than random percentile & weighted skills.

*Even if the game were to fully animate every hit & miss with a reason, ie. slipping on trash, twisting an ankle—but not breaking it, punching a wall, and not punching with the best skill with the follow-up strike... It would STILL need to be random number generation for it to be fair to the player and the game alike.

So the game can make a mistake for the player and it's roleplaying, but when the player is actually involved in the process it stops being one? This is some Taoist level doublethink. I'm actually impressed.

Learn why if you dare. (Go ahead, and do ask, doubtless someone will explain it in detail.)

Regardless, there's no reason to think that the limitations of the player should not be at play. Partly because there is literally no way to do that (they still have to build there character and make decisions), and partly because we're talking about roleplaying, not about being given a role to play.

There is no distinction between the two. Name the [effective ] differences between roleplaying a Wizard you create, and Gandalf, and Sauruman, and Merlin. The first difference is motivation, each of the four has a different agenda, each has different abilities, each has different ethics, and the means to their ends. Would Gandalf cast a spell to allow Gimli to impersonate Celeborn [with Galadriel] —Would Sauruman? (We know what Merlin did)—would your wizard do that? Could your wizard do it? That's part of roleplaying. It's not about wearing a costume. When you play a party based RPG, and have a lawful paladin, and a —less than lawful thief... does your paladin accompany your thief when they burgle rooms at the Inn?

Your error is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Don't be too down on yourself, I see it quite often.

I only ever see it used as a discrediting escape hatch. Particularly when someone cannot think of a way to disprove it.

Roleplaying isn't pretending, but it is rolling dice? Interesting.

Yes, it is... That's why I'd play. That's actually the ONLY reason I would bother playing an RPG... because things can go wrong. The character can do their best and potentially fail. This is what sucks about Bethesda's fake RPGs. You don't even get the chance to try something unless success is already assured. What little risk there is of failure, is the player's own handicapping of the PC.

So either you can't roleplay with just your imagination, or roleplaying games aren't about roleplaying. Honestly guys, you're just making it easy for me.

It seems easy, because your assumptions are more entertaining to you, than trying to understand these patient people.

It sounds like you want the game to play itself for you. If we take that to its logical end then we'd have a sim.

Not quite. In practice the RPG character should work like one of those Claw/plush toy machines one sees in arcades and supermarkets. The analogy being that each character is a unique claw with its own quirks and benefits. You indicate the target, and the claw performs its best [to retrieve the prize].

The player [in the case of RPGs] wants the plot to progress, but the PC has to pull it off. You'll notice a big difference between Fallout1&2 and FO3&4 is that in each, the player selects the target [to shoot at] but only in Fallout 1&2, is it up to the PC to aim and pull the trigger. In Fallout; as in any RPG [even aRPGs sometimes], the player cannot aid the PC in their plight. Ideally they should not even be allowed to solve a riddle—because it's not them trying to; nor are they there to whisper the answer to the PC. (But in practice, developers aren't often so strict. )

Plus... When stats are considered... the player might know the riddle, but the PC might be barely able to think—either drugged at the time, or even normally so. While the flip-side is that the stats could indicate that the PC is twice as smart as the player—who doesn't know the riddle, and as such is crippling the PC with an out of character loss of understanding. It's the same way in a fight. Did you ever play Street Fighter? (No it's not an RPG)... but players would play these life long athletes who train day in and day out to fight tournaments, and then lose because the player doesn't know any of their special moves. This is like roleplaying Bruce Lee in "Enter the Dragon", and him knowing nothing of how to defend himself. This is what's wrong with Witcher 2 BTW; Garalt went from being a consummate sword master to being a puppet; who can be beaten to death by village guards. In Witcher [1] the player was not impeding Geralt in his fights. They indicate targets, he attacked them to the best of his ability. It's the same premise used in Fallout, and Baldur's Gate, Pool of Radiance, Pillars of Eternity; and many others—It's even that way in Diablo.

 

[Risewild]

Roleplaying isn't pretending, but it is rolling dice? Interesting. So either you can't roleplay with just your imagination, or roleplaying games aren't about roleplaying. Honestly guys, you're just making it easy for me.

Ok, if you won't listen to reason and logic... Will you listen to the creator of the cRPG genre?

The cRPG was created by Richard Garriott, so he would know what a cRPG is, right?

Here is what he says what a RPG is:

Diablo, great game. Loved it. For me, I use the term "RPG" for it because it is a stats game. It's a "Do I have the best armor equipment compared to the creature I'm facing?" There's not really any story for it. It's a great challenge reward cycle game. Blizzard, by the way, does the best challenge reward cycle games I've seen.

On the other hand, Thief or Ultima are role-playing games versus RPG -- which I know stands for role-playing game. When I think of a role-playing game, it is now where you are charged with playing an actual role and qualitative aspects of how you play are every bit as important as what equipment you use. That's what I find most interesting. It's a lot easier to do stories there.

Here, the creator of the genre says that RPGs are stats games. Role-playing games are games where you can roleplay. Thief is a Stealth game genre, where you can role-play if you want but it's not a RPG.

See the distinction? RPGs rely on stats, while role-playing games are games you can roleplay. Metal Gear Solid Snake Eater is a roleplaying game, but not a RPG.
RPGs can be role-playing games, but not all role-playing games are RPGs. Words by the creator of cRPGs himself.

Most action RPGs are RPGs but allow as much roleplay as Super Mario Bros. Same with most Tactical RPGs, same with most jRPGs, etc.

Tim Cain also says cRPGs rely on skills. Here is him saying why he considers Star Control 2 more of a cRPG than an Adventure game:

You control a ship that starts off as a bare-bones hull, and as you acquire resources and credits, you can buy upgrades to improve your ship, as well as gain new crew and landing craft to replace any that were lost in battles and exploration. These features are a direct analog to the skills, items and hit points in a typical role-playing game, making Star Control 2 closer to a CRPG than an adventure game.

Peter Atkinson, a RPG system creator, founder of Wizards of the Coast and owner of Gen Con also thinks RPGs need more roll-playing than role-playing:

Peter Atkinson tells a story about being at an early 3e design meeting, where one of the TSR guys said "D&D needs to be less about roll-playing and more about role-playing," and Peter said "No, you've got it exactly backwards."

So you know what a RPG is better than the creator of the cRPG genre, one of the most influential cRPG creators ever, and the creator of modern D&D? Right...

 

[Zaius238]

I remember my first playthrough- it was messy to say the least (to only mention that I've discovered in Hub that you have to add caps from merchant's inventory and it doesn't happen automatically like in newer Fallouts).

It is a good thing you started from the original Fallout! I got my hands on Fallout 2 first (it came with a generic VG magazine as a freebie, the back of the magazine contained a bit of the game's story, and some screenshots. Got my attention), and the tutorial almost made me regret the purchase.

Fortunately I gave the game the benefit of the doubt, and after multiple character builds thrown in the trash can, and who knows how many game overs, I passed that abysmal beginning. I didn't even know you could change movement speed in combat mode, so it was even more annoying than necessary.

It's one of the weakest parts of the game, and it's right at the beginning. It almost ruined the interest I had for the series, something that wouldn't have happened if I had found a copy of Fallout 1 and tried that, instead. The beginning, in V13 cave, is much shorter, and the game releases you to the wasteland, without having to complete puzzles and such, first.

 

[TheHouseAlwaysWins]

0