Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
That's really not the definition of an RPG. That's just what FO1/2 were. If people expected Fallout 4 to be like the original game, they shouldn't have been excited for this one in the first place. I'll say it again. This is a game for fans of Fallout 3 and New Vegas.
|
New Vegas actually took a ton of positive steps back towards the originals. There were multiple ways to solve problems, and it was much more about the atmosphere and the characters than it was about just shooting bad guys. The hope here was that they would continue to build on that and take it a step further, rather than go 180 degrees in the opposite direction down a pit of stripping out everything but the Call-Of-Duty-esque point at bad guy, click, gun shoots bad guy. Now I'm reading a lot of reviews that say it's actually more like that than Fallout 3 was, even. This is very disappointing, in my view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
Fallout 3 is when the series changed, not Fallout 4. Complaining that the game is now an action RPG was a task for 7 years ago.
|
Again, you're right, Fallout 3 was basically an abortion, but I refer you to my previous comment about New Vegas being a step back towards what Fallout was supposed to be. It wasn't unreasonable to hope they'd keep that spirit going. I frankly don't care if it's first person FPS or third person turn based iso, I care about storytelling and variety.
Let's say you have a quest based on the notion that there's a small wasteland town troubled by raiders. What I expect from Fallout is that I can do, for example, the following:
a) Run in guns blazing and shoot all of the raiders;
b) Sneak around silently picking off raiders one by one until their force is diminished;
c) Find some environmental element that I can manipulate using skills to cause the Raiders to disperse (say there's a gas tank you can re-activate with a repair skill to flood their base with gas or a couple of fixed turrets you can hack into to turn against them);
d) Plant a series of traps and timed explosives around the base to take out the raiders;
e) Talk my way into the raider camp and convince one of the raiders to challenge their leader, causing the camp to split and fight amongst each other; or
f) Join the raiders myself, and go back and raid the small wasteland town.
What Bethesda seems to think we expect is:
a) Run in guns blazing and shoot all of the raiders.
... Now do it again the next quest.
... And again, the next quest.
The worst part is, that's actually the most BORING option of the bunch. But don't worry! You have a choice of
which gun you want to use, since you can use all of them as there's no real differentiation between character abilities!
Quote:
|
Either buy the game or don't. Support it or don't support it. The series is more popular now than it ever was as a tactical game.
|
Popularity doesn't equal "good". That should be obvious enough. Welcome to the market research generation. "People like call of duty, we sold a lot of copies of skyrim, let's just make more games like that". F off.
As for whether I'll buy it, eh. I'm on the fence. I'm just really disappointed as a fallout game should be a must-buy. Hell, an elder scrolls game should be a must-buy, but they can't even do those right since Morrowind.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike F
Imagine if some super rich saudis swept into Calgary, bought the Flames franchise, and promptly withdrew the team from the NHL and set them to the task of winning krumping competitions, 'cause that is what all the cool kids are into'.
|
This analogy is fairly hilarious, but I was thinking more along the lines of complaining about The Phantom Menace being a poor excuse for a Star Wars film. The response is not, "well they sold a lot of tickets and a lot of Jar Jar Binks toys so get on board!" It's "this is bull####".