>>3517558
Hot Take, stop spamming these shit ass threads.

>>3517558
so, let's analyze this faggot. is this dude a codexer who was banned for shitting up their board and then came here to do the same? he's also slavic, right?

>>3517558
I agree, only if done properly. I hate when games have an intricate character builder, but then the choices aren't represented equally throughout the game and there's no way you'd know about it unless you read a guide before starting. It just turns the early/mid game into a drag, you blunder because you want to roleplay something that sounds reasonable and then suffer because the skill is never really utilized or doesn't come into play until the end of the game. Either add an equal amount of gear and checks dispersed throughout the whole game start to finish, or don't give me the option to invest in them.

Fallout 1/2 are good but pretty lousy examples of games with decent builders.
>stats aren't balanced in the slightest
>every build ends up using power armor for strength anyways
>charisma is worthless
>everyone takes intelligence for the skill points
>tagging big guns, energy weapons, throwing, first aid, doctor, traps, barter, gambling, or outdoors is a trap choice
>you won't get to use the first two until the middle/end of the game
>throwing is self explanatory
>first aid, doctor are literally the same exact skill but one is flat out better than the other
>traps has 1 or 2 quest skill checks that actually affect quests in a 20 hour game, even characters with no traps can use dynamite and explosives properly
>barter and gambling are meaningless because you will never be hurting for money
>outdoors is literally a skill dedicated entirely to avoiding gameplay
>don't get me started on the perks
You could remove half those stats, half the skills, half the useless perks and the game would only be better for it. Or toss some shitty big guns, energy weapons in the first hour of the game as a holdover and pepper the game with skill checks for every skill if you actually want to give a reason to build and roleplay. Otherwise what's the point

>>3517589
Oh yeah and I forgot to mention, half the actual useful skills you'll have raised by 40-50% through books by the end of the game anyways, the other half you'll be swamped in items that give you +20-40% skill check on the skill anyways, so putting points into them is also a beginner trap.

>>3517558
>anyways, can anyone provide good RPGs
No, fuck off and kill yourself.

>>3517558
No it's valley, and this is why:
Throwing all semblance of balance and choice out of the window by allowing the player to experience every permutation of skills at once with infinite points trained multiple decades of RPG developers to no longer treat RPGs as games but walking sims where balance and designing character builds to win in more challenging environments no longer mattered. The absence of balance and choice spread from the character design to the content.

Part of the reason 5e is so popular in the form of BG3 besides the production value is that it is the start of the climb out of the bottom of the character and skill mish mash valley back to RPGs as a functional game again because there are actual tactical fights in that game and opportunity costs in character builds, not to mention down to opportunity costs in even the buffs you put on, since it is more possible to balance against structured character class and combat systems. It isn't perfect since there are still lots of exploits but it is more in the right direction for RPGs than bethesda slop for sure.

Fallout was always carried more on the strength of its unique setting rather than the bloated and unbalanced perks system whereas lots of things didn't even matter. Luck build dominated of course. Classic fallout being more of an actual tactical game that resembled bg3 than betheseda infinite points slop that came later of course.

>>3517566
spamming? bro ive never posted on this board before
>>3517572
nigga i literally never fucking post here, i just lurk on pol and occasionally post on bant

>>3517655
Fuck off, we're full

>>3517595
ok gatekeeping is based, i actually respect that anon

>>3517589
yeah, fallout games are known for being buggy and also unbalanced sometimes, even tim caine says that he wishes he could go back and fix some stuff, especially making skilled more balanced and combining first aid and doctor. charisma has always been worthless except for F4, the third worst game in the franchise. fallout 1 and 2 might have unbalanced shit sometimes, but the main point of using them as examples is more-so the build screen, not the gameplay of the build, every game can implement different things differently, like new vegas is a lot more balanced, except charisma still sucks, i will be honest in NV most people just do gun builds with high lockpicking, but sneak crit builds are super underrated. i dont hold F1 or F2 as the gold standard of fallout, or any rpg, but they have amazing build screens, also i would have used FNV as an example, but F1 and F2 is all in one menus, not split into 3 separate menus. i do a agree with you heavily though,

OP you should give Deus Ex a try, that game gives you a lot of freedom with your build.

Haven't played the sequels so I cant vouch for those games.

>>3517674
my brother has Deus Ex on steam and we family share, i downloaded but got sidetracked with other shit so never got to play

>>3517566
Wheres "hide thread" pic? Youre my favourite avatarfaggot

>>3517572
This is slav board, you are welcomed to post here just know your place and be polite

>>3517558
The character builder is fine but it's poorly balanced so there's plenty of shit/fake choices. Like you are forced to go high agility no matter what and charisma is pretty fucking useless, then you have all the bad traits and perks. I'm not a fan of Tim Cain's retarded triangle, but I think he made that as a cope out to not properly balance his game and give players true choices for their builds. This is why classes/jobs/archetypes/kits are better, they are easier to design and balance while the player can get an idea of what they are going to play and what equipment and stats they will use right away unlike with Fallout which requires some hands-on testing before you figure it out.

>>3517893
yeah, again, like i said in my other post with a similar topic, tim caine has said that he would make skilled more balanced if he could, and also i do agree with the agility shit, its so lame and worst part of fallout 1 and 2, fallout 4 surprisingly had the best take on AP in my opinion. and speaking of fallout 4, charisma i only useful in fallout 4. in new vegas it icreases companion damage, but when boone and ed-e wipe out a ton of legion at hoover dam, its like, do i even need to fight? they are overpowered lol, they dont need charisma to make them more OP. and finally, yeah, classes are definitely easier to make as a developer, but they arent as fun for the player, besides all the bugs and balance issues, which are kind of inevitable, especially with a game that never had an open beta, its hard to find every unbalanced thing and bug. fallout is not the perfect game, its well known for its bugs, but the story and lore and writing have always been interplay/black isle/obsidians strong point, as well as settlement/location creation. ffs bethesda is all hyper messy, like you're telling me every settlement and location needs rubble to portray post-nuclear shit? no, modoc in fallout 2 was peak settlement design

>>3517558
How about you actually play the game and stop spamming shitty threads?

>>3517917
Balancing stat systems just puts you in class system anyway. You either specialize, putting yourself into a class, or you become a wet noodle with bad synergies.

>>3517919
NIGGER WHAT DO YOU MEAN SPAMMING, THIS WAS MY FIRST THREAD ON ANY FUCKING VIDEO GAME BOARD

>>3517558
>I want i want i want wahahahahha
You will play the slop and you will like it. Now pay up piggie, theres a new remaster that you need to waste your money on

>>3517925
yeah, ig, but there is little more player control yk, like i can have a sneak crit build with 10 agility and 10 luck and 100 sneak, but i can also put in some other class shit, like how i can have that same sneak build, but also combine it with high medicine, so now i can have a stealthy doctor class or something, instead of choosing between a rogue or a medic.

File: file.png (355 KB, 1080x623)

355 KB PNG

>>3517940
i gotta start replying to several posts with one singular post

>>3517937
this board has like 3 or 4 wannabe trannitors that refresh the catalog every 2 min to shit on threads or topics they don't like. fallout got a resurgence due to the show so it's a popular topic, therefore bad and all these threads are made by the same person in the minds of these autists

>>3517945
>all these threads are made by the same person in the minds of these autists
He thinks it’s all the janny too which is even funnier. call you the janny when you tell them to shut up and move on with their life.

>>3517670
Yeah I can agree with that. The builder itself, as far as UI, and potential options you seem to have when you first play the game is great. The implementation of actually using those builds in the base game is pretty bad about it.

>>3517945
honestly, i can see how thats annoying, plus i love to gatekeep, ive loved fallout for years, but ive never really been an RPG guy, apart from obviously fallout and also elder scrolls.

>>3518850
yeah, its a case of great design, poor execution. fallout new vegas is definitely less buggy than fallout 1 and 2, but thats also with years bug fixes after launch, i love the build UI a lot, its just a good RPG design, and i think a truly good RPG would promote player choice and freedom, like hot take, but JRPGs are really shit sometimes, and the worst RPG games are the ones that are just "kill boss, proceed, kill boss, level up, proceed, etc" like Dauntless, those RPGs are hardly even role playing, the most freedom you get is being able to create what you look like, but does that make red dead online an MMORPG? no, and RDO is way less linear than any RPG similar to dauntless

>>3517558
Well you played Arcanum, right?

>>3517945
This shit is so stupid. I recently went back and replayed fallout 3, because I haven't played it in over a decade and see nothing but people shitting on it on just about every forum I see. I really enjoyed it when it came out, but from all the negative feedback and complaining about it online as the years went on I started to doubt my memories and think maybe it was just nostalgia giving me rose tinted goggles.

But no, it's actually a really solid, enjoyable game, I did the run vanilla and it really surprised me just how well it's held up. The atmosphere is great, the feeling of exploration when you can just turn on the radio and wander in any direction and find cool shit is absolutely top-notch, there's little nooks and crannies with fun shit to discover absolutely everywhere you look, the combat's enjoyable (oblivion with guns meme comes to mind, but I enjoyed oblivion, so I digress), the power progression through the game as you get your build together, pick up the perks you need, fill out your stats feels good.

Is it "theme-parky"? Sure. Does it "betray" the setting the original two games set up? Kind of. But when I look at it not as a direct continuation of the same IP by the same developers and writers, but as a spiritual successor, it's honestly one of the best RPGs released in the last 20 years. Willing to be that the majority of haters online have never really sat down and soaked in the game in an honest playthrough, and are just hopping on the bandwagon because it's cool to shit on things normies enjoyed (and why wouldn't they enjoy F3, after all?)

>>3519054
>Willing to be that the majority of haters online have never really sat down and soaked in the game in an honest playthrough, and are just hopping on the bandwagon because it's cool to shit on things normies enjoyed
Yeah, various things outside the game itself can affect opinions. I went through a phase when I was younger, trying to find the objectively bestest video games. It was stupid. Now I enjoy games I used to criticize, and I often get replies shitting on them that could've been written by me 10 years ago lol

>>3519023
not yet, but its on my steam wishlist

>>3519054
fallout 3, is bethesdas best and only good fallout game. fallout 4 is when bethesda sold out and went mainstream. fallout new vegas is still a prime example of a peak fallout game, but fallout 3 is still enjoyable and playable, and not a lot of retcons for a bethesda fallout. and i love how they implemented ghouls into the 3D world, they still look like they should, living corpses that were unlucky enough to survive a nuclear blast. fallout 4 ghouls are just burn victims with missing noses

>>3519064
>Yeah, various things outside the game itself can affect opinions.
It's really bad on /vrpg/ of all places. People regurgitate authoritative statements or criticisms of games by bringing up shit that's not even in the game, or is easily disproven by playing the game itself and if they're called out on it they double down or slink away.

>>3519887
Hard to separate bait from plain arrogant ignorance, or a desire for arguing

File: fac9-2bcd-4cc9-86ca-f4c31(...).webm (2.18 MB, 720x1280)

2.18 MB WEBM

>>3519064
im not the guy you responded to, im OP, but playing games to criticize is based, if you look at fuckin redditards, they all love slop to consoom and then they preach "capitalism bad", nigger, you support the worst kind of capitalism, consumerism, worst part of redditard consumerism is that they will hate on new vegas fanboys for hating on the TV show, aswell as fallout 4 and 76) for its many retcons so actually playing a game to take in the lore and writing and gameplay is based. I would be lying if i didnt play some games for slop just to pass the time though.

>>3520083
>but playing games to criticize is based,
nta, but I think he means don't go into a new game letting prior criticisms taint your enjoyment of it, and don't go into the game with the intention of playing it to criticize after, because it will impact the way you perceive it. You might have enjoyed the game more if you didn't go in with a preconception that you wouldn't and spend all of your playtime looking for small shit to nitpick.

>>3520083
>playing games to criticize
Do so if you enjoy it. I didn't force myself to stop, I just eventually got bored of it, and found out it's more enjoyable and engaging to have a balanced and broader view.
>if you look at fuckin redditards
I don't have a reason to mind what terminally online whackjobs say or do. I'm interested in games.

>>3520098
>playing it to criticize, because it will impact the way you perceive it.
Has happened to me, and it can also produce a feedback loop. I hated Dark Souls 2 for various reasons and was actually mad about it. Then I saw I had played it almost as much as DS1, pointing to the fact that it was in fact enjoyable. So I replayed to see what's good about it. A different experience.

>>3520098
ohhh, that makes a lot of sense, i still hate how redditards will defend even the worst game in a franchise solely because its from that franchise. fallout has turned into the thing it was parodying. hyper-consumerism, but redditards just think its anti-capitalism.

>>3520242
yeah, i worded that wrong, playing a game specifically to criticize is lame, unless you go into with hate for it, like im no gonna go into genshin impact with high hopes.

Awful threads like these have made me passionately hate fallout and I shall not be playing a single fallout game ever again.

>>3520410
You keep saying this kek. No one cares you spastic. This is fallout nad morrowind board, if you dont like ot fuck off to v

>>3520418
>You keep saying this kek
I have never said this. You have genuinely made me hate this series.

>>3520443
Same post over and over again, past time you cried how you always wanted to try but fallout threads made you dislike the series *sad music* fuck off back to your BG3 threads

>>3520410
>>3520443
>>3520506
I've seen the same post before, and I don't believe we have multiple posters autistic enough to hate a franchise because of some threads on /vrpg/ lmao

>>3520571
>I don't believe we have multiple posters autistic enough to hate a franchise because of some threads on /vrpg/ lmao
You'd be shocked.

>>3520571
>>3520573
the funny part is, this is hardly a fallout centric thread, the only thing really relating to fallout is the build creator picture and a few mentions to fallout. its more so an appreciation thread to this system of class building, fallout is just the best example i can think of

>>3520940
You should've put a trigger warning

>>3517589
I only disagree with you on
>Energy Weapons
The alien blaster is not nearly as rare as it should be in F1, and even if you don't get it early on you still need Energy Weapons to beat the endgame comfortably, unless you're cheesing Luck + Sniper perk + unique BB gun. Not a trap choice, just thinking ahead or betting on a specific encounter.
>Gambling
Makes the early and mid game extremely easier in both 1 and 2. At about 80-90, which is attainable at level 2 if you tag it, it's a license to print money. Still helps a little bit late game but admittedly not as much, can't be called a trap though. I'd go as far as saying it feels like cheating.

>>3522075
I agree with you and should have clarified, everything I mentioned is only for shit you tag directly at the beginning, not invest into later. They're traps in a different sense.

For energy weapons, it's an incredibly solid pick for late game, but a brand new player starting a blind playthrough who sees it and thinks
>hmm, I'm going to make my vault dweller a high intelligence techy guy using futuristic weapons
and tagging it as his weapons skill of choice is going to have an absolutely miserable time for the first few hours of the game. He'll be dominated in every fight and encounter and have no idea where to go to actually get the weapons he needs nor that the alien encounter even exists.

The game actually expects you to tag small guns, unarmed, or melee weapons, and then start dumping points into energy or big weapons once you hit the halfway point. But it portrays them in the builder as equally weighted choices valid to take on from the beginning.

I can't remember what game I saw it in originally, but some games with similar skills systems only let you start putting points into a skill once your character is trained or aware it even exists. Ideally, big guns/energy weapons shouldn't even be listed in the character builder or your character sheet until you reach some point in the game where it makes sense for your character to start learning about them, and then they're added and you can put points into it.

For gambling, I do agree that it makes it easier to buy EVERYTHING in the beginning, in that sense it's not a trap that fucks you over. But it's a trap in that you could have spent those points on skills that are actually fun to use and influence gameplay because even without barter/gambling just picking up shit off enemies you kill and selling it will always net you enough caps to comfortably buy whatever ammo, chems, etc. you need to finish the game.

I’m gonna replay FO1+2 and it’s been like 20+ years for me. How good is a melee/big guns/doctor build? Which big guns are good and which are trash? Any reason to take first aid instead of doctor? I always used to do the cookie cutter small guns speech diplomatic sniper. I think I’ll play on hardest difficulty with a full party.

>>3522406
>How good is a melee/big guns/doctor build?
A lot of people would say don't bother with melee (or unarmed). In Fallout 1, definitely not. In Fallout 2, it can work. Though you might not want to take it far if you're wanting to focus on Big Guns instead. You should choose one or the other, pretty much. Both can carry you to end game, but both require much different perks and builds.
>Which big guns are good and which are trash?
Flamethrowers and rocket launchers are fun, but not very good in the late game. Miniguns, and Bozar, will be the best of the best. You will want specific perks to best take advantage of them.
>Any reason to take first aid instead of doctor?
First Aid is pretty much worthless. Doctor is barely useful with some tie-ins with perks and quests, and a skilled doctor can make pretty good use of the heals in the early levels, but it later just turns into a pre-req for perks.
>hardest difficulty with a full party
This will very quickly turn into a solo run, tbqh, without some major savescumming.

>>3522406
I think unarmed is better

>>3519054
>But no, it's actually a really solid, enjoyable game
It's really not. It's a bad rpg and a bad fallout game. The atmosphere is awful, it's fucking ugly and soulless, the writing is absolute shit, the locations are shit, combat is pure cancer, it's buggy as hell. Absolute trash of a game. It's babies first rpg for the xbox 360 generation zoomies and they can't get over their warm and fuzzy memories of playing it as a kiddo.

>>3522669
funny because this describes jew vegas perfectly lol
even the babbys first rpg part

>>3522670
It shares a lot of the same issues.

>>3522670
new vegas has better writing, atmosphere and player freedom, which is why a lot of people like New Vegas more

>>3522406
You actually aren't supposed to use builds in fallout. The games aren't designed for it and fall apart when you optimize, which is why the pre-made characters are specifically very shitty. This is sort of why fallout is bad. Mechanically it doesn't work at all.

>>3522777
obsidian cant control who plays. and tell me a better fallout game? is it fallout 4 with the same 4 copy pasted endings? is it fallout 3 with the one faction? no, new vegas has 4 major factions, each has pros and cons, there are million endings depending how you play, from the start you can choose to help goodsprings or powder gangers, alternatively you can just not help either, or you can kill both. the game doesnt gaf what you do, you can kill all other factions and go with yes men, you can do a pacifist run, you can do melee, sneak, guns, big guns run, the game dont give a fuck. is the same can be said about fallout 1,2 and 3, but definitely not 4. fallout 4 is an everything run, since you can get every perk

>>3522942
to add on, this is something i just remembered, i know several trannies who are in love with half life and also the postal series. you wouldnt call the postal series trooned out, you wouldnt say jewstal, but it attracts jews and trannies. you cant judge a game based on players, only the game itself

>>3522669
> It's a bad rpg and a bad fallout game.
You read shit like this, and you really have to wonder if the person who wrote it even played the fallout series at all

>The atmosphere is awful
The atmosphere in Fallout 3 when you're just exploring the wastes is top notch. They crammed so many random encounters and interesting locations all over the map you're pretty much bound to still be finding new shit you had no idea was in the game at all several playthroughs in.

>it's ugly and soulless
I have to assume you're not playing fallout 1/2 for the graphics either. Claiming F3 is a bad fallout game because it "looks ugly" when the previous 2 titles and 2 spinoffs were ugly top down games with 3/4 of them having the same assets they couldn't bother to redo and looked dated as fuck when they came out is disingenuous as fuck.

>the writing is absolute shit
Eh. It's certainly not as strong as F1's writing. But worse than F2's? Nah. And there were some decent characters/quests in F3 that go toe to toe with the side quests in 1/2.

>the locations are shit
DC downtown + the metro areas were great. The DLCs had some neat locations too. I think the biggest charm in 3 vs 1/2 lies in the fact that the map is absolutely peppered with small, sometimes unmarked, locations to see unlike 1/2s "visit these 4-5 empty towns and then the endgame military area" approach. 1/2 for the narrative, 3 for the exploration.

>combat is pure cancer
What about it? It's literally just oblivion with guns and VATs and oblivion combat was pretty well received and enjoyed.

>xbox 360 generation zoomies
I don't think zoomers played on the 360. Wouldn't they have been like 5 years old when it came out. I was 12 or 13 when F1 came out. Played a lot of 1/2 in middle/high school. I genuinely don't remember anyone being negative about F3 when it was first announced, shown off, or released. Everyone loved it. The constant bitching, nitpicking, and criticisms feel like they came later.

>>3522942
i would respond but you reported me like a crybaby lol

>>3523378
i didnt report anyone, i have no reason to report anyone, i dont give a fuck what you say, its your opinion, i was just explaining why my opinion was better. im a free speech nigga, everyone has a voice, even if i dont like it.

bump

>>3523359
>I genuinely don't remember anyone being negative about F3 when it was first announced, shown off, or released. Everyone loved it. The constant bitching, nitpicking, and criticisms feel like they came later.
I agree with much of your post, but this is where the “oblivion but with guns” criticism came from. Many people that liked Bethesda games thought they went downhill with Oblivon and FO3.

>>3517589
>>3518850
Very well put.

>>3517558
You could try the Wasteland games too.

>>3524307
>I agree with much of your post, but this is where the “oblivion but with guns” criticism came from. Many people that liked Bethesda games thought they went downhill with Oblivon and FO3.
Fuck man, I don't know. Like I said, I don't ever remember people shitting on games this hard back then. Maybe it's because I didn't really used to participate in online discussions much if at all. I used to get just about 90% of my information regarding games from issues of game informer and the other 10% from talking to friends. And sure, bad games would absolutely get shit on and torn apart both in review and in person conversations. But I don't remember this level of nitpicking, pulling everything apart, people just looking for anything to tear down and be negative about. It feels like so many people now aren't playing games to look for shit to enjoy in them, but to look for shit to complain about after.

>>3524352
>Like I said, I don't ever remember people shitting on games this hard back then. Maybe it's because I didn't really used to participate in online discussions much if at all. I used to get just about 90% of my information regarding games from issues of game informer and the other 10% from talking to friends. And sure, bad games would absolutely get shit on and torn apart both in review and in person conversations. But I don't remember this level of nitpicking, pulling everything apart, people just looking for anything to tear down and be negative about. It feels like so many people now aren't playing games to look for shit to enjoy in them, but to look for shit to complain about after.
I agree. I've been on forums since the mid 90s, and this board in particular is one of the most profoundly negative boards I've ever seen.

Crazy how people keep saying they're going to play Fallout then never do it.

>>3524359
Bait, but I'll humor you: I have a replay of it next in my queue, but I am a dadgamer with little time, so it'll be a few weeks probably. I will post a thread when I do so. I played the crap out of 1, 2, and Tactics back in the day, played some 3 and New Vegas and didn't really like either, and basically stopped giving a shit about the series and moved on since I didn't like the games anymore. Such is life.

>>3524359
I replayed all real fallouts this year (1, 2, nevada,Sonora,ressurected,olumpus)

>>3524359
I think you're just noticing the gap between original fallout players and players of the newer games in the franchise.

F1 sold iirc only 600,000 copies year one and F1+F2 probably sold around 2 million together.

Fallout 4 sold something like 12 million copies on launch day alone and probably more than 30+ million lifetime copies.

So you'd probably expect to see a lot more people online playing the newer games and then saying they're going to go back and play the older ones than people who played the originals first talking about it online. You're assuming it's one or a few people saying they're going to play it and then never doing it but it's far more likely to be more people deciding to go back and try out the first games after playing the newest ones.

>>3524449
Even back in the early 2000s, I tried to get my football buddies to play Fallout 1, and they couldn't get into it. Got murdered by radscorpions just after leaving Vault 13 (bad luck I guess)

>>3524451
Mine buddies couldnt temple of trials, retards

>>3517558
>peak
What is peak about it?
Fallout cgen sucks because nothing you do matters and the gameplay doesn't change.

You're either melee/unarmed or ranged. That's it. Everything else is just the occasional skillcheck (very rare) outside of combat that usually just skips a quest or makes it easier.

There's no roleplaying or character 'builds'. These games are awful.

>>3524521
its just the customization, you arent limited to a single class. i will admit after playing TESO, classes arent bad if done right, but i just find them very constricting. fallout isnt perfect, and every fallout dev would say the same, but theres more player freedom. sure most builds boil down to ranged, melee, or unarmed. but those are also broad, ranged has sub categories like energy weapons, big guns, and small guns. you can also combine classes and make like ranged stealth, my favorite build, high guns, high luck, high sneak, and taking critical and vats perks. plus you can larp as characters like a DOOM build would be 10 strength, high guns, high big guns, and using guns that are also in DOOM, thats just one example.

>>3524451
>>3524464
Been playing Minecraft with my nephews, and it has got me thinking about accessibility. It's nice that games are more uniform: it's easier to introduce new games, since controls carry over. If someone can play Minecraft, they can easily move to other similar games as well.

FO1 isn't as complex as Minecraft, but would require one to learn a whole way to play a game and how the game works. Even kids could learn it, but it's just a whole other thing. Can't just jump in and enjoy the game while learning as you go.

>>3524534
im not the guy you were replying to, but while yeah, fallout is easy to get the hang of. the way fallout games have been introduced are actually pretty well done. fallout 1 is the first game, so people playing fallout 1 as their first fallou game will have to explore the world the same time the vault dweller does, kinda putting yourself in his shoes. Fallout 2 takes place with the Chosen One having some, but not much experience in the wasteland, so fallout 2 players will have a lot of prior knowledge, but there is so much more added to fallout 2 to give it a similar sense of exploring as the Chosen One does. Fallout 3 is a lot of peoples first game as thats when fallout went mainstream, so same thing i said about fallout 1. people playing fallout new vegas have probably already played fallout 3, so having the Courier know a bit about the wasteland already makes sense, and if NV was your first game then well the Courier also has brain damage and doesnt remember a whole lot. and fallout 4 we dont talk about the start of fallouts downfall.
in short, each game plays as the protagonist and player would see it in real time which i think is really cool. and most games don't need pre-established lore. you cant just start off with Halo 3, you gotta play Halo CE and Halo 2 first.

>>3524534
games becoming more accessible is exactly why theyre so shit now. devs can print money even with the shittiest games, and all other devs will take their ques from those shitty games. that fact that you haven't figured that out... lol.

>>3524538
not the guy you replied to, but I hate when things go mainstream. i know this isn't /mu/ but think of Trent in Nine Inch Nails. His label told him to make a digestible album for the masses. that plus constant touring made him so pissed off, he started breaking shit on tour and he secretly worked on the Broken EP which was made to be heavy and hard to handle, and he made a short film to commemorate it, which was a artistic snuff film. even the thought of selling out. i wish game devs were nearly as based as him, fallout 4 was the sellout game of the franchise, they made ghouls into burn victims, they put rubble and trash EVERYWHERE because fucking retards cant tell what a post-nuclear world would look like, its no suprise only redditards love fallout 4, the game is too mainstream and digestible. do i like how Bethesda made fallout 3d? yeah, im not gonna lie, did they do a good job with fallout 3? ehh they did an okay job, they got stuff like ghouls actually right, yknow people unlucky enough to survive a nuke, not a housefire. I would just love to see a company do the opposite of mainstream

>>3524543
P.S. Hatred, while being kinda gay, is a good example of not being mainstream, also Postal 1 and 2 are really good with also having a funny sense of humor. now that i think about it, a lot of games are anti-mainstream, like manhunt aswell.

>>3524451
Your football buddies didn't get filtered, they just didn't want to be nerds.

>>3524958
They somehow were able to play Morrowind on the Xbox, which I literally cannot imagine doing

>>3524981
Because Morrowind is a good game, simple as that. Cope and seethe, sperg.

>>3524996
I like Morrowind. I just can’t imagine playing it with a controller and no mods or dev console. Have you considered that perhaps it is you who is seething and sperging out, anon?

>>3517558
>Oblivion

Retarded contrarian.

>>3525001
>I just can’t imagine playing it with a controller and no mods or dev console
It's just Morrowind, really.

>>3525016
you're the retard. im not gonna play a game cause a bunch of niggers like it, im gonna play a game cause i like it

What

>>3522670
>brings up DA JOOS out of nowhere
Please, for the love of everything that is holy, return to your containment board.

>>3524352
Old players weren't pleased with the lore changes, inconsistencies and obvious dumb things but Fallout was fairly niche until 3 so there was not a lot of whining

>>3524543
It's the curse of most big franchises. As an addendum though, I don't think it's really related at all to something going mainstream, I think there's a far bigger correlation to actual company growth alongside the original creators/founders moving on to other things.

You can see it in any kind of media. D&D and W40K are two great non video game examples. First 2-3 releases, original creators are still at the helm, they've got their vision, they're making the kind of game they want to play themselves, there's not a million hands all over it tweaking it this way and that or people just working on it for a living and the product comes out great.

Fast forward 10-15 years, the creators with their concrete vision are long gone and replaced by an army of bureaucrats, bean counters, and 9-5 salarymen who really don't give a fuck about anything beyond half assing their job until they can clock out and go home. So each new entry becomes blander and more diluted because there's no real identity and people are treating it like just another wageslave job.

I think it's more than possible for something to go mainstream and still be as great as it was at the outset provided the original creators don't leave and keep a firm grip on the direction they want to go in.

>>3528311
>Fast forward 10-15 years
Yeah, can't expect things to stay consistent for that long. Imagine spending your next 5 fucking years on a single game. And add the fact that someone leaving the studio can change the workplace significantly. Or someone new can change it, for the worse or better.

Regardless of the franchise or studio names, it's best to regard every game as a whole new project. Things don't stay the same.

>>3528328
War. War never changes.

>>3517589
>tagging energy weapons
>trap
Did you even play the game?

>>3517589
big guns is great in 2

>>3519054
Fallout 3 is pure shit and if you play and enjoy it you should kill yourself.

>>3529447
>>3529448
Read the post again. They're early game traps for blind playthroughs. You won't use either one until you're significantly into the game with no indication given that you shouldn't take them. Someone playing the game for the first time, or without having used some guide or wiki, isn't going to know to grab either one and then rush the alien pistol encounter, or bozar in 2.

It's a trap choice to have on the character builder as a taggable skill. If you're playing the game blind or the way the game was intended you're better off only dumping points into energy or big guns starting mid game.

>>3517558
Underrail vastly improved on this but it sometimes forces you into weapon spec perks too much.

>>3517558
Ah yes, the classic 2 CHA, GIFTED character

>>3524320
>>3517558
Bumping for wasteland. 2 has plenty of useless skills, but 3 is pretty well-balanced, even toaster repair

>>3530714
>Fallout 3 is pure shit and if you play and enjoy it you should kill yourself.
Are your parents proud of you for growing up to write things like this on the internet to strangers?

>>3517558
I'm sorry but leveling athletics and acrobatics is peak gaming. Numbers go up /orgasm

You know, I've been thinking a bit more, about how to solve this kind of problem, where the character stats are portrayed as equal options but not actually weighted, ie for example agility and intelligence far outweighing everything else because of the extra skill points and action points and strength or charisma not even being requirements for strong melee characters or charismatic smooth talkers because the skills matter much more than the stats.

What if the skills/stats system was rebalanced in a way where instead of the stats being fairly insignificant as far as gameplay goes, they were instead the caps for potential a character has in learning the associated skill? The skills would have to be changed to have 100% be the max and to have say, 50% be much more meaningful of an investment than it actually is currently (close to 70-80% in the base game), but it'd be something like, your stat * 10 is the max possible amount of skill points you can put into the associated skill.

Have a 7 intelligence? Science, repair, etc. can only go up to 70% max. Have a 6 strength? Big guns, unarmed, melee weapons can only go up to 60% max. Using chems or equipment that raises stats would raise the associated skills by something like (stat * 10)/2% points temporarily, like +2 strength from power armor giving you +10% in big guns, unarmed, melee weapons, or the +4 int from mentats giving you +20% in int related skills.

>>3533352
Disco Elysium, though not really an rpg, tried something like this

>>3533352
Yes, attributes should define the character. Often it seems like attributes just offer secondary bonuses to skills.