For you, good sir: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqkZXNZwZq4 (Errant Signal - (Spoilers) Fallout 4 and Role Playing)

"Fallout 4 does not equal Fallout 1"... does not automatically translate to... "Fallout 4 is not an RPG".

I understand the frustration of the Fallout fans who wanted the franchise to never change, but Fallout 4 is still, by all possible variations of the definition, an RPG.

I'd blame the console crowd for the dialogue changes made. Yeah, those could be greatly improved upon, but again, they don't change the game's genre.

Is Fallout 4 problematic and potentially dumbed down? yeah. But claiming its just an FPS is beyond exaggeration.

However, as that video linked just above points out, the game is fun as is, as long as you play with an open mind. While I don't agree with everything he said, he did a good job of making his case about the changes made without raging and slanting what the game really is. He does a great job of explaining why existing fans are frustrated. They did make some changes that most don't like. The trick is.... can you live with those changes? I still think its a great game, but would love to see some of the deeper elements of the franchise re-introduced in future projects.

Fallout New Vegas was the right way to make a first person rpg, bethesda didn't pay attention

I'm getting tired of and passively used to scrubs on the Internet speaking senseless subjective shit what is crpg and holy shit look Mass Effect (a tps marketed to dumb biodrones as a refined crpg) has dialogue wheel as well and it's an crpg, fuck you - no, it's like saying that it's the colour of the car body that defines what is a cra and what's not. The recent damage control from clueless bethesda drones just making me sad. Just sad. The pinnacle of strawman damage control is the classic of "it's just fun as is, as long as you play it with an open mind". Yeah, larp in a shit engined piece of code and THINK, yeah - PRETEND and ERSUADE yourself you're having fun (as if that had to do with even the broadest definition of any genre). That's how low modern industry has fallen and that's how in a retarded, pathetic way dies the consumer's common sense. To play-pretend.

By logics of these damage control loverslab addicted shills Far Cry 4 is a crpg and a better one than Fallout 4. Fuck.

And the issue is not even that it's not a cprg or a fps. It's a shit game that burns through the content and implodes within its own mediocrity from shit engine through the shit writing and ending with no-gameplay mechanics that consist of running back and autism-friendly junk collecting so you can run back even some more. This shit is not fixable, even the modding scene of New Vegas officially admits it and says that the game needs a production cycle from the scratch to do anything meaningful (due to gamebryo engine butchering I mentioned recently) and that they're staying within NV scene. Mods won't fix it.

That is - if you don't check if you're parents are home, kiddo, and download that tasty new tits mod from the loverslab. What seems to be what a considerable chunk of the playerbase is doing.

^^^ THIS.

It's like they just let Obsidian have their fun and then just went "yeah that's good, but we'd rather do things our way. That way we don't need to hire creative talent for the writing/quests/etc."

Just wait until Obsidian get a hold of the Fallout 4 engine.
Can you imagine what they would do with those tools???
Good things come to those that wait!

:)

The same thing Bethesda did.

Nothing.

Surely they'd come out with something similar to what they did with the Fallout 3 engine - when they created New Vegas.

They would need to write a new engine, because even the modding scene admits that the butchered, regressive version of the 2001's gamebryo engine will not go outside the levitating-backtracking-shooter schema. It's really amazing to watch how with each installment of their next product, Bethesda manages to make already inferior engine (gamebryo) even worse, by limiting it more and more just it could fit more extremely resource hungry textures and irrelevant to gameplay shaders and console-spawned effects (at the same time doing the worse job than amateur modders) or bussiness_conference_room-born minecraft features that are in the game just because they calculated it will bring an extra $ from the people who would otherwise -not- buy it.
And even if they tried to implement some good - although purely cosmetic - things from the modding scene of NV (Nevada), they failed miserably in a really pathetic way. In a normal company these hacks would long be gone and working in tollbooths.
It was only a matter of a really niche studio that is known for making technically inferior games (Obsidian) that with really little effort, despite fighting against one of the shittiest engine in the history of gaming, to dethrone Bethesda's "magnum opus" in its prime time - New Vegas, that was itself really limited at launch and had more content cut out than it had in the actual game.

With Fallout 4 it's really the case of "even mods won't fix it".

Boggles the mind how someone can foam away of engine limitations in a fallout game.
Fallout game, for pity's sake. FO1 had, arguably, mostly good visuals for an RPG 20 years ago.
But that never was the point. It's all about the atmosphere.

FO4 does *not need* fixing and neither did New Vegas or even FO3.

Pray tell, what are the good CRPG's if both Bethesda and Bioware products are the bad ones?

wasteland 2, pillars of eternity, divinity original sin, shadowrun dragonfall and hong kong, witcher 3, black guards 1 and 2, legends of grim rock2, mount and blade, lords of xulima, sanctuary rpg, crypt of the necrodancer, age of decendance, serpent of the staglands, and etc.

So... interesting and varied tactical combat? Preferably but necessarily turn based?
If so, then I at least can see where you're coming from, if not agree on what makes a good rpg.

Pretty much one of the important things in a rpg, as varied tactical combat is needed for games that have different classes, or characters with different abilities. But the most important thing is player choices having impact on the world, as dialog with npcs are important in rpgs for the world building aspect of the games.

Christ. Please allow me a series of posts, since this forum can't handle more than a paragraf:
Are those really the only marks of crpg you know? Bethesda and Bioware companies? I should not act surprised, because since mid 2000 (I like to call 2006 as a turning point, with the "next-gen" overtaking the whole spectrum of computer gaming and enmassing it TV style, and with each year more and more clueless people don't exactly know what's going on and just follow the marketing parties calling this game a cprg, this one a simulator, this one is revolutionary, this one is a must have an instant classic. Truth to be told, there was barely ANY crpg released in the past 10 years if you look only at mass market.
In fact, barely any games that would belong strictly to a distinct genre are being made. The last bastion of games with their own strong integrity when it comes to the genre they belong to are in fact real time strategies, and there are so few of them. That's because - they're not popular. They're aimed at a specific and narrow consumer target and will never make it "to the top" since even with well crafted marketing - marketing can cater only towards this specific target audience (Starcraft 2 is the only exception, but it broke through only die to forced shutting down of the first game by Blizzard). Does anyone plays Grey Goo (it's a top notch rts - and it's unpopular as fuck, because it has been bought by its initial target audience!). And that's because - gaming market today is a bloated mass entertainment pool for EVERYONE POSSIBLE and to be successful - every single product must be for EVERYONE POSSIBLE.
Computer games between 80 and early 2000 were a really niche market. Yeah, console gaming was "big" but never as big as TV or cinema or popular literature.

No one important is making "real" games - games that live up to the definition of "game" (failure status) - they're a product for mass consumption. Consumption is not the principle of any gaming, let it be a computer game like X-com or a history long classic like chess. It's about testing your various skills against the rules and odds. It's not an issue anymore.
Every "big" (AAA) game is born not in heads of enthusiasts or players, people who MAKE games. They're born in conference rooms and are designed specifically to be SOLD to EVERYONE. And thus the merging of every possible genre begun. People like fantasy? Throw some supernatural stuff! People like s-f? Throw some s-f bullshit! People like romances? Throw romances in! People like action? Throw action in! Here, you have your first Mass Effect created (I DID enjoy the series, but it doesn't mean the game is GOOD as a GAME, it's not; LIKING != GOOD, it's what the mass consumer can't grasp).
Every game is a calculated construct of every best "feature" of every genre possible. People like stats and character development? Throw them in! People like open world, doing what "they" want? Throw in an "open world" area! People like drama? Throw in some emotional bs and companion interactions (if the game is a solo shooter, make sure you will fight against hysterically overblown antagonist that follow the edgy CN schema). Boom, there's your Far Cry.

Let's stop for a second here. The newest Far Cry: Primal. For a strictly game logic perspective, this game is pointless. It's a copy pasted (non)gameplay schema in a new hat. The prehistory with some SUPERNATURAL twists and your standard CN villain (because EVERYONE loves/loved their CN shows, rite?). But why the prehistory? Well, the answer is clear! What's the HOTTEST thing in computer gaming right now? Survival "simulators", of course! And by some strange coincidence the great majority of them are set in pseudo-prehistoric times! You have dinos, sabertooths, mamooths, cavemen, tribes... I don't need to give you people the names of these games. Everyone knows what they are. Not a single player is not aware of their existence.
What could the publisher do to make the consumer base for his Far Cry series even bigger? Well, to target new audience? This brilliant idea was born in a conference room or between two marketing managers talking on a chat. Hey, people like that prehistoric stuff now, just look at the Steam stats! I know, rite? Let's make a new Far Cry with cavemen. That's how gaming market is now (I covered that for Fallout 4 in previous posts - shooting, dialogue wheel, emotional drama, and crafting). No one is making the AAA game with THE game itself in mind. No one fucking cares about expanding distinct genre's possibilities, about fixing inherited flaws of every single production (that's why I find consumer's regret so insulting with "X does not need fixing!" Everything could be better and everything must be under constant process of fixing, it's not only the games), it's about throwing the next product for masses to CONSUME and DEMAND more. How can we make people to demand more and more of virtually the SAME thing (the one game being remade over and over again - look at AC series that's hitting the bottom line, but STILL sells)?

That brings me to the second point of the rules of conduct of nowadays gaming industry (the first being throwing EVERYTHING so it can be appealing to everyone).
It's the ACCESSIBILITY. Everyone most ENJOY themselves! Everyone must feel good at the end! So it can demand more when the game ends. That's how mass marketing works, folks. Why do people come over and over for SHIT food (because it's worthless as food) at McDonald's?
Because it's TASTY. People might now it's crap food, but it's tasty and people like food that is tasty so they will come back for more.

How does that principle translate to gaming? Basically to removing the "game" of out the game. The gameplay simplifies more and more. There are barely any games that involve true failure states, let it be fucking up your resource management in a shooter (it's absolutely gone from everything that identifies as a game with shooting) or fucking up your character build (a definition of crpg) trying to overcome obstructions that interact with your build (that's why there are NO crpg anymore in AAA industry - there are stats and "building", but there is NOT A SINGLE WRONG choice you can make - you will be rewarded no matter what you do). It began with adding the quest compass, so the exploration and player's interacting with the game's world (that required LEARNING the rules of the game and overcoming the obstructions) could be replaced with CONTENT TOURISM, so EVERYONE can SEE and DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. Same with the actual gameplay, that is being turn into, what I call, autistic activities. Or call it a disguised clicker games. You click click click and really it doesn't matter what you click, if you click long enough, eventually you will see all the content and see the ending credits. They don't require any effort from the consumer, there's no resource management of any kind, there are no obstructions that couldn't be passed no matter what player could do wrong - because there is no wrong available for the player. Hence, the quest compass, the regenerating health, never ending badges of honour, achievements, etc.
What was the gameplay quality replaced with? It has been shown in this very thread that once again proves some parts of my pov on what the gaming market has turned into.
Yep, it's the SUBJECTIVE value. It's about the "fun", it's about the "atmosphere", it's about "experiencing", just play it with "an open mind" and it will be fun. There's no argue with that, because every game in history has those factors calculated, but they were never the part of the definition of gaming. But taking them onto the first plane is the only logical conclusion of removing the gameplay more and more from the games. And it's really convenient for marketing, because SUBJECTIVE values are the perfect field for MANIPULATION done by advertisement and telling people "you enjoy that, don't you, brah? Yeah, you feel engaged, you want some more, buy a sequel, show your kindness and the support for YOUR company".

The gameplay, as I've mentioned, is not entirely removed, of course. But in the third, or even the further plane. It must be as simple as it is possible, it must be accessible and not punishing. Hence the Shadow of Mordor, which looks really nice, it "feels" nice to sit in this game. But it's a shit game people win with a monitor TURNED OFF mashing left and right mouse buttons and spacebar and hitting 200 hits combo. Because it was designed to work that way, while SHOWING a player he's "fighting". He's not. He's a tourism through the content that was calculated at the biggest spectrum possible. Who DIDN'T like Jackson's movies? It doesn't mean that people DON'T enjoy those games. The masses love it, but not because they're good games AS games, but they MAKE feel them in a certain way. AAA games are the McDonald's now.

My post seemingly might look as avoiding your question, but at the end I think it explains how the market works nowadays, because it applies to crpg, and you can read my previous posts, because they can be treated as a follow up to this. - I've reached the limit, I will copy-paste the rest after a someone's post, I'm not done yet.

I got into CRPG's with Ultima III, then IV and V. Those had a lot of thought and potential, but never captivated me the same way as the later D&D Gold Box adventures, Pool of Radiance was particularly unforgettable. Phantasie III, while fun to play, almost didn't have a story at all.

All those however, were very lite RPG's, basically just adventure games with rpg mechanics. There was pretty much one way to solve each situation, no talking your way through things, no roleplaying as I see it.

Fallout 1 was the game changer. Suddenly you could choose to *not* listen to some douche giving his lecture, instead just blasting away with your shotgun. And the game let you do it without breaking down, you could still proceed. Fallout 2 improved on this.

Compared to that, Baldurs Gates, or even Torment felt pretty shallow. Arcanum had similar qualities, but wasn't as refined. Icewind Dales and Elemental Evil were fun but just for the combat, which is not enough for me.

Witcher 1 was a fun game, but one I almost don't count as RPG as you're given a ready character. Choices and consequences aplenty though. Didn't finish Witcher 2 and haven't even bought 3 yet. The combat in them was not appealing to me, the same reason I didn't enjoy Jade Empire as much as I wanted.

Tried several Spiderweb games as well as Eschalon series, Grimrock too, but they all seem to want to go back to the 80's while I'd like to keep moving forward. I did like Shadowrun games (except Hong Kong) but they're the same. So seems to be Wasteland 2, but haven't finished it yet.

Give me good stories, interesting companion characters, plenty of talking and getting to know them, more freedom to do my thing.

For me, the milestones forward were:
Neverwinter Nights, mostly as a foundation for fan modules.
Knights of the old Republic, the first CRPG where everything worked.
Dragon Age, the best CRPG I've played so far. Sadly, Bioware dropped the ball after that and has not managed to pick it back up so far. DA inquisition has promise, but is just too tedious and not fun to play.

As for Bethesda, Oblivion was the first I could stomach. Morrowind being just too clunky in every way.
Fallout 3 brought the wasteland alive like never before, while Skyrim did the same for... well... skyrim.

The two RPG's I play now are Mount&Blade (Prophesy of Pendor) and Fallout 4, both giving a lot of freedom to roleplay my character the way I want and to do my thing the way I want.

And yeah, how much fun I have playing a game is much more important to me than how good the game is by some arbitrary or measurable factors like engine capability, number of polygons or whatever.

PS. Also went through Final Fantasy VII and XII at some point, both were good.
VII was better in many ways but I liked playing XII a lot more.