Lord of the Rings have much deeper lore than Fallout, that is true. But I don't see any problem with show changing lore, if that change is for the better and if writing is good. And I can't see Amazon or Bethesda write something as good as Lord of the Rings, let alone New Vegas!

Fallout does indeed have a deep lore, but calling it intelligent I would not. It flies in the face of anything that we call reality, science and sociology, and there is no good reason for it given except "just roll with it, bro"

OG Fallout and New Vegas plus DLC-s are very intelligent, but not because of lore. Rest is more miss than hit.

just what is intelligent about them? how do you even operationalise "intelligent" in this context? I dont even

Fallout 1 - game where you can defeat the big bad by showing him futility of his plan without fighting him. Considering that 95% of RPG-s still don't have that feature, I'll take it as an intelligent game design.

New Vegas - intelligent writing of characters, factions and world reactivity to player actions. DLC-s are all either good character studies (hi Joshua Graham) or examination of theme.

You criticizing fiction for not being realistic is kinda missing the mark. Fiction (and art) is (are) lie after all, and lie isn't realistic to begin with, but it can be believable.

so the game designers and the writers are intelligent, not the game. That is really nothing special , as such, that is them doing their job. By this standard most games are "intetligent" in one way or another

Their job is not to be intelligent, their job is to make game that sells. Lead writer of Fallout 4 sticks to KISS rule when writing - keep it simple stupid. And Fallout 4 sold more than New Vegas, but it's writing isn't the reason for it.

Many games writing is significantly below New Vegas. Heck, Fallout TV show didn't match it and it's not even a game. And it's reactivity is unmatched by most games. It's not special, but it's significantly above norm.

False.

true

True in the sense that even persons of low intelligence are intelligent. When I speak of intelligence, I mean high intelligence.

haha. this is even getting better and better. Please clarify what the different is beteen "high intellignece" and "low intelligence" in relation to a game mechanic. Should we give the game meachanic an IQ test?

(not that IQ tests actually meassure intelligence)

It means that it is a game where game mechanics aren't well taught of and are not designed cohesively. It's a bad shooter and city builder, RPG mechanics are limited to progression system, and none of these mechanics work well together with the main gameplay loop of exploration and looting. Not that there is much reason to explore but still.

In short, it looks like a game designed by morons, opposite of game designed by intelligent people.

well, i had my fun, thank you. In the end, this can all just be closed off by saying that everything you talked about is just subjective. Wheter someone like a game maecahnic, is subjective. Wheter someone like a story, is subjective. Wheter someone like a creature design, is subjective. So in the end, all you are doing is trying to justify something you like by calling it "intelligent" and something you do not like as not. And that's it, really. It is just another adjective you are using to justify your own personal taste. Good for you.

Of course it is. All values are subjective after all, be they moral or artistic. But we still are going to argue and analyze why some subjective experience is the way it is, and why is it shared by more or less people. If you are going to use subjectivity as justification for nothing mattering at all, then you should do better than this. And I will damn right call stupidity if I find it, especially if that stupidity negatively affects my perceived quality of something. There are stupid games I like - hi Resident Evil 4.