Support NeoGAF

[Tigress]

Ugh...

For a moment I thought that at least this time Bethesda would look to the original Fallout games (or, you know, New Vegas) and decided to not go the Bethesda-route and offer a classic Fallout-ending where you get shown the consequences of your actions and that's it.

But noooo, of course it's going to have an open ending with post-ending gameplay. And no level cap so you can make über-characters with every perk in the game. Fuck this.

You know, before reading the reasoning behind why you couldn't continue playing New Vegas I actually preferred the let you keep playing. Mainly cause I prefer to finish the main game then do DLC rather than have to do the DLC then main game.

It's not a deal killer for me like it seems it is for you, but yes I'd prefer to hear it has a definite ending (Even if they did it Witcher style where you can continue but it's considered playing before the ending). Mainly because that would mean they could have a lot more variance in endings. Otherwise it would be too costly to try to have the game diverge enough to accommodate every ending if they had very divergent endings but let you play afterwards. Having it be playable after you finish the main quest says to me that your actions in the end won't have too drastic affect on the world. Or it will only have one type of drastic affect on the world (so they only have to change the world in one, maybe two ways after the game is done). Or they just ignore the ending entirely (hey, you could win the war for the stormcloaks in Skyrim and it didn't seem to affect too much. YOu still even got soldiers marching stormcloak prisoners around even though supposedly the stormcloaks had kicked the imperialists out and won Skyrim).

I don't mind the endless leveling though, that doesn't really bug me. I always worry I'm going to reach level cap before I'm done anyways. This will remove that worry for me.

 

[Revas]

Actually, I'll ask this. What RPGs that aren't turn based out there allow me to up skills that are not combat based and let you use those skills to affect how you play the game?

Because I think that in itself is an important distinction. Most RPGs I see compared are ones that are very combat focused (with maybe some dialogue to choose how the story goes) but don't really focus on you being able to approach situations using skills that aren't combat based. And if they do have dialogue choicess it's more you just get to try to pick the choice that is best or where you want the story to branch to.

You aren't using a skill that you have been improving in your character to solve a problem. You aren't able to say, "My character is really good at medicine so she/he'd recognize how to properly dress this wound to make sure it heals" or he is so charismatic he'll be able to persaude this character to see his point of view. Or he knows enough about tech to be able to tell this person a better way to handle dealing with a piece of technology.

You're not able to say, I want a character that is really good at smooth talking or is really good at science and have that affect how your character is able to solve problems. Turn based games have this, true. But that's cause they are based on D&D style rpg, same really as Bethesda games. But I haven't really encountered many live action RPGs that aren't focused mostly on combat if not all on combat.

And yes, Bethesda weakens this from many turn based games that do do this better. But they do a combo of it and live action that I just haven't seen elsewhere. And Obsidian took their game and showed how you could do a much better compromise that did both the live action combat while still staying a very good D&D (vs. videogame RPG) style RPG well (for example my medicine example was ripped straight off of something you an do in New Vegas).

The only other RPG that functions this way is Mass Effect 1 (that I know of).

 

[Octavianus]

Ok, to put in perspective, I said name me another game to this quote from you:

...... You responded to a post in which I claimed that simply having an open world, which is Bethesda's main appeal next to being able to drag bodies around, is hardly unique so I'm not sure what kind of response you were expecting.

Honestly, if you think every other RPG does what Bethesda games do well you obviously don't get why people love Bethesda games.

You're right, I don't because I don't think they do anything well at all and your Witcher 3 example is ridiculous at best. More gamey? Really?

I'm curious, I know you're not a fan of Bethesda and you've made that clear but will you be playing Fallout 4? I'd be curious to see if they'd answer some of your criticisms.

It depends. I don't dislike Bethesda so much that just having their brand on something will stop me from playing said thing, so if it's a good game I'll play it. I want this to be a good game because I care about the IP but their track record and (almost) everything they've shown and talked about so far hasn't installed a lot of optimism.

 

[Tigress]

The only other RPG that functions this way is Mass Effect 1 (that I know of).

Just 1 (Not the others) ? How much so? I'm actually curious. I'd love to know of more games that work this way honestly as I think that's actually what I really love about Bethesda games. The ability to not just do combat but be more like a true RPG game where you have a lot of different options on how you approach things.

I keep trying other RPGs that I see mentioned and they just don't scratch the same itch. I was so hoping Witcher would cause I heard the story was a lot better and that is something I find a major weakness in Bethesda games. But it really isn't the same type game (and it is definitely still focused on being a combat based games. All your customizations involve some how making combat easier/more finesse). Yes, you can make some choices but I actually want there to be a speech/charisma/science skill where my character could possibly be even better than me at it so that skill affects if I succeed and not just if I made the right choice in the dialogue tree (something I liked about 3 over Vegas. Vegas flat out told you what skill you needed where as in 3 it was a risky choice on if it would work. Just your skill being high would make it less risky).

I dunno, video games that just focus on the combat to me are less immersive and make it feel more like a videogame vs. roleplaying/simulation. RPGs that I like best are ones that I can almost put myself int hat world, like reading a good book (even if the story is weak . But really it makes up for it that I'm making my own story too as I play).