Search results

That's another definition again, which precludes any game that requires reflexes or hand-eye coordination. Including New Vegas, Witcher, any Ultima game later than VI, Morrowind, Deus Ex, VtM: Bloodlines, and too many others to name.

If you define an RPG as a game in which players take on a role and engage in adventures in a fantasy setting run by a computer, then half the games in existence qualify. If you cherry pick the term "take on a role" to mean that players must be allowed to make up their own character and...

I guess?

A glass of water with a drop of whiskey in it technically is an alcoholic beverage. A really shitty one. Just as Fallout, with mainly shooter gameplay and a handful of RPG elements, is a really shitty RPG. That definition doesn't appear to apply to any video game.

It's a shooter with some interesting environmental mechanics and a couple of RPG elements. Like a System Shock 2 Lite. If you like that sort of thing it's fun enough.

:roll:

They can die off screen if a settlement is attacked. The game doesn't simulate combat or anything of the sort, it just deletes them if you fail to respond.

I mean I think it'd be fine, they obviously have some pretty good design talent on staff, but I dunno if they'd want to do it. No one with half a brain could possibly care whether their favourite developer played Game X or Y. Do people actually engage in the level of lunatic idol worship over...

I want a DLC where the main storyline is that it turns out the Institute weren't completely destroyed, and that their remnants are hooning around in a mobile tank base and you have to blow it up. Err, or if you sided with the Institute then it's the Brotherhood instead I guess, maybe they...

It fits the definition because you get to determine whether you help little Billy or sell him to the evil slavers, you get to choose whether to help Lorenzo with his alien head bullshit or kill him to put an end to his kooky schemes, and ultimately you get four buttons to press at the end to...

I'm kind of doubtful - but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the art direction from FNV were influencing this project as well. It's not uncommon in projects which share similar themes.

Fallout 4 fits the definition you provide better than a lot of superior RPGs I've played, from Final Fantasy to Ultima. Fallout 4's story is uninteresting and the effects of player choices on it are generally either poorly realised or minimal, but e.g. most games in the Ultima series offer no...

Uncultured philistines are also welcome.

Heh, the amount of people who've come here for this same reason since last November, including myself, is kind of funny. The couple of other places where I've tried to discuss Fallout 4 pretty much demanded everyone frame any criticism of the game with copious amounts of grovelling or risk being...

It depends on the expectations the game establishes. In an arcade game, no. In a supposedly living, breathing world, yes. And in either case I find myself asking "why" a whole lot more if the game fails to even stay consistent with its own devices.

I don't get the hate for Bioshock 2 either. It was a pretty fun, compact game which I found enjoyable enough to play through a second time using only the drill. Bioshock Infinite became a chore for me quite quickly though.

And on the center of a hill, forcing attackers to exhaust themselves just trying to cover the ground to the gates. I can't believe I'm talking about how much more sense Skyrim makes than Fallout 4.

You don't have to follow a set path, I went directly north through the deathclaws to the Strip the first time I played the game. I suspected that I was probably doing it wrong but the game didn't stop me or anything. I agree about the invisible walls, I hate those, but I don't agree with...

Since this is meant to be a serious topic, rather than poking fun, I'm just going to ask: why in the world would you go to the Moon in a Fallout game?