Interplay vs Bethesda Fallout: Indigo Gaming

I watched the video and I agree with some of his points. However, the Bethesda and Interplay games are extremely different from one another. The First is an RPG with FPS elements, the second is an isometric turn based RPG. Both have lore similarities and such, but they can't be compared to one another. The first 2 fallout games are amazing in their ability to tell a story with atmosphere and immersion, but in my opinion the turn based shooting should isn't that great. I feel as if a style similar to Baldurs Gate would have sufficed more. Perhaps a hybrid of the two.

The Bethesda games excel more on the technical side of things. As stated, the world feels more detailed and connected than what Fallout 1 or 2 could do, but Fallout 3 and 4 both have horrible storytelling. You don't feel compassion for your son, or any desire to be Liam Neeson's son. It feels as if you're stuck in a world you don't feel a part of. And Fallout 4, despite the number of mods you put together, is flawed at the core. You can't expand the 4 choice dialogue menu to 5, or 8 because that would require alot of work to program.

Despite all this, they're all Role Playing Games. Fallout 4 is still an RPG, and while it might have more FPS elements added in, you still have quests, stats, and other characteristics of an RPG. You can still ignore the fact that you have this random son / wife and just play the game, build settlements, fuck Preston over, etc etc. Sure, it might be flawed, but Bethesda can Learn.

Originally Posted by Tuaam
I watched the video and I agree with some of his points. However, the Bethesda and Interplay games are extremely different from one another. The First is an RPG with FPS elements, the second is an isometric turn based RPG. Both have lore similarities and such, but they can't be compared to one another. The first 2 fallout games are amazing in their ability to tell a story with atmosphere and immersion, but in my opinion the turn based shooting should isn't that great. I feel as if a style similar to Baldurs Gate would have sufficed more. Perhaps a hybrid of the two.

The Bethesda games excel more on the technical side of things. As stated, the world feels more detailed and connected than what Fallout 1 or 2 could do, but Fallout 3 and 4 both have horrible storytelling. You don't feel compassion for your son, or any desire to be Liam Neeson's son. It feels as if you're stuck in a world you don't feel a part of. And Fallout 4, despite the number of mods you put together, is flawed at the core. You can't expand the 4 choice dialogue menu to 5, or 8 because that would require alot of work to program.

Despite all this, they're all Role Playing Games. Fallout 4 is still an RPG, and while it might have more FPS elements added in, you still have quests, stats, and other characteristics of an RPG. You can still ignore the fact that you have this random son / wife and just play the game, build settlements, fuck Preston over, etc etc. Sure, it might be flawed, but Bethesda can Learn.

While I don't agree about Bethesda games being quite that bad, I find it refreshing to see a balanced opinion around here when it comes to this subject.

Rare

Originally Posted by daveyd
Those type of RPGs have always been pretty rare but I do love being giving options to avoid combat, when it makes sense.

One recent release where you can do pacifist playthroughs that comes immediately to mind is Age of Decadence. (Of course this is only true w/ certain backgrounds, mercenaries and assassins will have to fight sometimes).

Shadowrun Hong Kong also has quite a few missions you can complete without any combat if you have the right skills, and Shadowrun Dragonfall had a few, too.

Expeditions: Viking sometimes lets you avoid fights through diplomacy; you can't do a pacifist playthrough by any means but you can choose to use non-lethal attacks in every fight, which sometimes affects things.

And an upcoming crpg that will have little combat (basically none in the traditional sense) is "No Truce With the Furies".

Copper Dreams is going to let you potentially avoid a lot of combat with Stealth.

Also check out the Aversions on this TV Tropes page: RPGs Equal Combat

My perception might be skewed then. I started PC gaming around 2003 and there were already enough such games for me, but as the time passed I saw not a lot of new such games coming out.
Nice list btw, I really need to try Alpha Protocol. I keep hearing good things about it, but I never get myself to try it.

"RPG" games went 3D and Console.
The first one requires huge budgets for the assets, so marketing approval, so more mainstream, so more FPS and less RPG.
The second removes 10 years to the average public target.
Games are more "fun" because they are FPS with some RPG-cherry on top.

The new more oriented RPG games published those last years are by "indies" or smaller teams but are mostly iso and PC mainly. Less budget, less marketing involvement, older target, more writing, more choices.

Personally, I am glad to have both now because they are certainly not scratching the same itch.

Originally Posted by Aerth
"RPG" games went 3D and Console.
The first one requires huge budgets for the assets, so marketing approval, so more mainstream, so more FPS and less RPG.
The second removes 10 years to the average public target.
Games are more "fun" because they are FPS with some RPG-cherry on top.

The new more oriented RPG games published those last years are by "indies" or smaller teams but are mostly iso and PC mainly. Less budget, less marketing involvement, older target, more writing, more choices.

Personally, I am glad to have both now because they are certainly not scratching the same itch.

Weren't there alot of First Person RPGs in the past? Like Ultima, TES Games, etc etc?

You are right about the console part, but I feel as if that was during 2007 or so (When the PS3 and Xbox360 came out). In fact, Oblivion suffered the same problem relating to how gameplay was compared to Morrowind or Daggerfall, where areas that could be something else were replaced with Dungeons or more underground areas. It was also a very different time for the PC market and the Console Industry, much different compared to today. Alot of fallout 3 and oblivion was just quantity over quality, really.

This quantity over quality died down with Skyrim, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by JDR13
FO 1&2 were great for their time. I quite enjoy exploring the wasteland in 3D though.

Games don't age, they are either good or they aren't but nice try.

Originally Posted by luj1
Games don't age, they are either good or they aren't but nice try.

Times change even if you don't.

That's right JDR. Market trends change. Quality however is not affected by the passage of time nor changes in fashion. Therefore Fallout 1-2 will always be good, not unlike classical painters or composers.

Originally Posted by luj1
That's right JDR. Market trends change. Quality however is not affected by the passage of time nor changes in fashion. Therefore Fallout 1-2 will always be good, not unlike classical painters or composers.

Yeah, that's why you're spending all day playing Spectrum games instead of whining about things you could never understand because your emotions are blocking your brain.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Times change even if you don't.

There is a game but enormous amount of subtext, yet rarely anyone feels it and dunno how some can't understand why it's a masterpiece. I did quote in a few posts: Times have changed.

Originally Posted by Aerth
"RPG" games went 3D and Console.
The first one requires huge budgets for the assets, so marketing approval, so more mainstream, so more FPS and less RPG.
The second removes 10 years to the average public target.
Games are more "fun" because they are FPS with some RPG-cherry on top.

I cannot agree.

All games are trying to go 3D, not just RPGs. Even in Betrayal at Krondor, 3D by itself didn't require huge budget. Hybridization you mention, where one aspect is stronger than another, is not really connected to 3D - it's determined by a publisher's expectations.

About console and age I have to disagree even more. It doesn't remove years. It removes IQ requirement. Games didn't go console. Games went through dumbing down process because Quality Assurance today is a bunch of low IQ people - if a game is fun to them it goes live, if a game is not fun to them it needs to be dumbed down more. For sakes of more sales games lost depth and any challenge is a rare thing to see.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
Yeah, that's why you're spending all day playing Spectrum games instead of whining about things you could never understand because your emotions are blocking your brain.

This kind of games is being remastered, and GOG has built his name and business model on that, guess why.

Ah luj1's trigger doesn't work anymore? How sad. Maybe try Cialis?

If that's supposed to be a joke it's not very good. Telling that you opted for Cialis though.

What's that, Pete? How do your buddies go about designing world/setting in Fallout:

Originally Posted by joxer
There is a game but enormous amount of subtext, yet rarely anyone feels it and dunno how some can't understand why it's a masterpiece. I did quote in a few posts: Times have changed.


I cannot agree.

All games are trying to go 3D, not just RPGs. Even in Betrayal at Krondor, 3D by itself didn't require huge budget. Hybridization you mention, where one aspect is stronger than another, is not really connected to 3D - it's determined by a publisher's expectations.

About console and age I have to disagree even more. It doesn't remove years. It removes IQ requirement. Games didn't go console. Games went through dumbing down process because Quality Assurance today is a bunch of low IQ people - if a game is fun to them it goes live, if a game is not fun to them it needs to be dumbed down more. For sakes of more sales games lost depth and any challenge is a rare thing to see.

What do you mean by Low IQ People / Low Quality Assurance?

Originally Posted by Tuaam
What do you mean by Low IQ People / Low Quality Assurance?

Unlike normal people, joxer doesn't say what he means. He says something, then he means it.

As in, he doesn't necessarily actually mean it - but now that he's said it, he must mean it.

I watched the video and, while it devolved at times into "Everything Interplay did was perfect" and "Everything Bethesda did was bad" it seemed that's how that player honestly felt rather than an attempt to convince people that his opinion is the objectively correct one.

For my part I really enjoyed Fallout, started Fallout 2 straight away but got burned out on the format early and put it aside for later.

Then Fallout 3 was announced and I got excited, played the three 3-d Fallout games and loved them all. Also loved Dead Money, Old World Blues, Nuka-World and Far Harbor. Replayed Fallout 3 once after buying the GOTY edition.

Still haven't played Fallout 2 but started Fallout 1 again with the plan being to do Fallout 2 afterwards.

Like many people I found that the writing of New Vegas was better than Fallout 3, but the exploration was somehow lacking.

Having played both fairly recently I find the idea that the writing in Fallout 1 is brilliant and that the writing in Fallout 3/4 is childish to be just plain wrong. When you're not handpicking the best of one and the worse of another, the quality difference was a lot smaller than I'd have thought given the pervading opinions I've heard online.

Originally Posted by The Brown Dragon
Having played both fairly recently I find the idea that the writing in Fallout 1 is brilliant and that the writing in Fallout 3/4 is childish to be just plain wrong.

It's not that it's childish, but rather utterly simplistic. And that's without taking into account just how ridiculously pointless the FO4 dialogue system is with its four menu choices that differ not at all.

Originally Posted by luj1
Games don't age, they are either good or they aren't but nice try.

The medium to support them age.

Pixel art was one way to go round limited technology. It is no longer, no matter whether it was good or not.

Originally Posted by Aerth
"RPG" games went 3D and Console.
The first one requires huge budgets for the assets, so marketing approval, so more mainstream, so more FPS and less RPG.
The second removes 10 years to the average public target.
Games are more "fun" because they are FPS with some RPG-cherry on top.

FO1 and 2 were released roughly 20 years ago. On this site, this gives an age bracket for people who played them around release.

People played them in their late teens to early fourties. With a concentration in late teens to early thirties.

Basically, the targeted audience has not changed since the vid industry focuses people in their late teens to early thirties.

Simplification also does not hold because of younger age: younger players have time and dedication to learn and command a complex set of rules.

The simplification might happen because studios sold a franchise and wanted to bank on the previous episodes fame. Players who played FA 1 on release at 25 were nearly 40 years old when they played FO 3.

More importantly, the ugoigo pattern is one of the simplest pattern in gaming. Players who can play other things are able to play ugoigo. The reverse is not true.