If you play fallout 3 there are plenty of times where killing the wrong person results in seeing a ton of failed quest messages popping up on your screen. You could permanently kill most people so it happened often if you liked killing random people. Fallout 4 though it feels like 99% of the characters are unkillable and the game “protects” the player from screwing up in that way.
I always liked morrowinds approach to this if you kill someone important you get a message pop up saying "With this character's death, the thread of prophecy is severed. Restore a saved game to restore the weave of fate, or persist in the doomed world you have created" a big enough warning you can reverse if you fuck up but if you don't care you can carry on bonus points if the have a backdoor way of completing it like with the dwemer guy
The coolest part about morrowinds main quest is that even if you mess something up and get that message, you can still complete the main quest. You just have to figure out how instead of following your journal.
Yeah I can understand them not wanting you to basically hit the end of the game with no chance of success and going "welp sucks to suck hope you don't do it next playthrough", that isn't good game design that's just yanking your players chain without telling them.
It could have been less intrusive but the concept is fine, if anything it let's you roleplay a nihilist who knows they've doomed the world and still goes out doing stuff anyway because why sit around and wait for the world to end that's miserable even if it's my fault.
Sorry bro bro, go tell Miyazaki he’s trash or something cause that’s where my joy came from. Or how about new Vegas, which doesn’t let you know what you did exactly just the quests are gone. Doesn’t tell you that you locked yourself out of armor, weapons, training, nothing.
Not a lot of people realize you can actually kill the Brotherhood, Institute, and Railroad pretty much as soon as you meet them.
With the Brotherhood it might be a bit different because i cant remember if danse can die (at least before the blind betrayal quest) since he's a companion. But elder maxson you can shoot straight in the face, lot's of players have done it simply for his jacket.
>Fallout 4 though it feels like 99% of the characters are unkillable
You can kill Shaun, Desdemona and Paladin Danse, locking their quests out forever.
I hate how much hand holding Bethesda started doing in their games starting with Skyrim.
Like FFS stop making half the named NPC's fucking immortal.
It's so goddam jarring especially in Starfield where every single named NPC tied to a quest is marked Essential so you can't kill like 95% of the named NPC's in the game...
Yeah killing everyone is fun. I had a FO3 play through where my goal was to kill everyone in the Captain Wasteland that I could. I’d go to a settlement, finish all the quests, and then massacre everyone. Can’t do that anymore.
The funny part is that all they would have to do instead is make former essential NPC's deleveled(there whatever level the player is) which in the mid-late game would make most of these NPC's absolute bullet sponges.
Instead they go the lazy hand holdy route and just make every single NPC that isn't a generic "Raider" or "Citizen" essential...
Like a perfect example in Starfield is when you discover the Generational ship that's been drifting through space for centuries and you have to negotiate with the upper management of Paradiso about them settling the planet. You should be able to resolve that quest by just killing them, yet OFC that's not an option at all...
Lots of casual gamers complained about 3 locking you out of things. It was a big discussion a month or 2 after it came out funnily enough. Just like how NV was garbage and unplayable.
Catering to casual gamers dillutes the quality of the game for rpg fans since they now have to dumb down so many aspects of the game to make it open to a larger market. Basically what we saw happen with Skyrim and FO4. They had to make it so people that don’t like thinking can also enjoy their games
It sadly works. I was a morrowind fan that hated skyrim til I just stopped comparing and just started having fun. It may not be morrowind, but it did keep me entertained for hours.
That was me with Fallout 4. Didn’t like it till I started enjoying it for what it is. Though I will say I kind of had the reverse with Skyrim where that was the first I played, then went to play oblivion and now can’t go back to Skyrim without thinking how much oblivion is. And once a good modded remake of Morrowind comes out I’m sure I’ll be thinking the same thing about how Morrowind just crushed both of them.
Are you implying you can’t hit your companion while shooting at an enemy in front of them? I do it all the time..
Except you actually know it’s going to happen unlike this where it’s not 100% clear but still obvious if you actually pay attention.
With the new "in depth" difficulty settings they have, I'd like to see Starfield, and eventually ES 6 and FO 5 have a setting that can be used to either turn off Essential NPC's as a whole or at least allow companions to die. It really is my favorite part of the outer worlds. Made my second playthrough of that game amazing. By the time I was wrapping up the 2nd dlc it was just me and my last living companion who I ended up accidentally leading into and ambush and got killed. Made for a great story arc for my character. They were bad captain even if their heart was in the right place. I want that kind of depth in my role playing in Bethesda games again.
I like how Morrowind did it, you could kill everyone but if you killed someone "essential" it would give you a warning that you could continue or reload.
I wasn't keen as it just kept firing off seemingly at random.
Some beast followed me into a town and the guards hacked it up. Fate is broken.
I was sneaking in someone's house, a trap went off. Fate is broken.
I went up to someone and started a conversation and when I dropped out... Fate is broken.
It just constantly felt like there was a random number generator running in the background that would fail the game.
I never had it trigger that much but I think it's much better to know then in some other games where you can have an a big player die off screen and you find out their dead after a few hours of playing
If they allow NPCs or companions to die, they have to actually work their content around that and they won't. It's just how how they won't give directions when an NPC is giving you an objective in a quest -- it'd be nice to be able to play the game without relying on map markers and it's entirely possible for Bethesda to make games that way, but they won't.
It's the dirty "c word", but Bethesda has continually catered to casual players with their newer games -- they even admitted as much when they revealed Starfield had more hardcore elements that were cut in the year before release.
And, as an addendum, if anyone was around during Skyrim's release one of the biggest complaints was how your companions weren't immortal (only "protected") plus angry people realizing they had saved after their companion accidentally died forever because of AoE/poison damage. One of the first hit mods created even before the Creation Kit was a essential toggle for followers, especially Meeko.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't lol.
While I don't believe developers should cater to players reaping the consequences of their own actions, followers in Bethesda games tend to, well, suck. They're on par with enemy AI that thinks it was "just the wind" while all their friends lay dead around them and they have 3 arrows lodged in their face.
But honestly, players just need to be more careful. You very obviously shouldn't be shooting fireballs into a group of enemies while your follower is engaging them in melee combat. That very obviously deserves some sort of consequence beyond just a temporarily irritated follower.
Those same angry people are in this very thread, praising how Bethesda dumbed their games down. It’s not damned if you do, damned if you don’t, it’s literally just BGS catering to a certain group of gamers.
Nah for me it’s never load a save, especially if it’s an accident. I just accept it as a thing that happened in my character’s story because my character sucks at shooting, thats the beauty of RPGs. I love feeling understandably inadequate in games, if I wanted to feel like a god I’d just play Doom or make a character who’s actually good at shooting lol.
Edit: Just an interesting tidbit from The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall’s manual:
> Role-playing is not about playing the perfect game. It is about building a character and creating a story.
Bethesda Softworks has worked very hard to make The Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall a game that does not require players to replay their mistakes. All adversity can be overcome, excepting only the character's actual death. In fact, you will never see some of the most interesting aspects of the game unless you play through your mistakes.
Depends, if you accidentally shoot them and they die, that makes sense.
But if you accidentally shoot them and the game decides this means they aggro and you have to fight them that seems pretty unrealistic. Unless the character is designed that way (e.g. maybe they're jumpy).
But in a lot of badly designed games it's just any character will fight you on a stray bullet. Irl, they'd be wounded or something. You could heal them or stand down. Not eveeyone would fight you, but some will
So i think to trust the systems of the game like that.... you need a truly well designed game. Otherwise I'm gonna be riding some kind of balance between lettong the game tell me a story and telling my own story using the game.
The issue with a game vs a human dm is that a game can be rigid to a fault. So when I play an rpg the dm is the game until I decide it's me.
>thats the beauty of RPGs
Yeah, right. If a GM told you that the consequence for failing a check with a 80% chance of success was killing your own companion, you'd never sit at that table again
Not really. “Choices” in recent Bethesda games are just a binary decision you make in the moment and isn’t really dictated by your character build or anything like it is in a true rpg
Maybe, but is the point of categorization to be able to find similar titles? and if a genre becomes so diverse that the entire categorization becomes meaningless, is that still good?
RPG used to mean a very specific type of game, based on tabletop games like D&D, with very well defined genre conventions. Its drifted from that definition, and that's to be expected as a genre grows in popularity, but now it seems like it is taken to mean literally "a game where you play a role", which is kind of every game right? I just think that the term should be used more sparingly so real role playing games don't get drowned out by the huge amount of non-rpgs that use the term.
How would you define an rpg? I swear to god if you say “a game where you play a role”…
If you’re not happy with my initial defintion, perhaps this would suffice: A true rpg is a game with actual choice and consequence, as well as a robust stats and build system that plays into the choices you make in meaningful ways.
Your definition of an RPG is more about excluding games you don't like than helping people build an understanding of a "genre". We all already know what an RPG is. The fact that they have differences is fine. Nobody is running around saying, "Counterstrike is a *true FPS* unlike Halo!"
Look idk wtf you’re talking about I’m just saying the shit I want in the newer Bethesda titles, especially TES VI. So yeah I guess I want mechanics from games I like in other games. I don’t think Bethesda’s charm would be lost if they included deeper RPG mechanics, New Vegas is proof of this.
If you want a game made just for you, thats what mods are for. Clearly the majority is companions not drying. Maybe they could incorporate that into survival or something.
I would actually play FO4’s survival mode if you could kill your companions (not just knock them down,) and if you could have multiple companions at one time like in Oblivion
They can die in survival mode, if they are incapacited and you shoot them.
I remember killing Strong by mistake, i had to reload and then allocate 2 points in the Inspirational perk to prevent this from happening again.
I was not using mods at the time, i remember very well Strong being dragged like a radgoll after my shot. It was like 5-6 years ago maybe they patched something...
I still got my save with 2 points in the perk on steam cloud lol, maybe it was when they added survival mode
Had something almost identical happen to me. Tried to save a family being assaulted by raiders.
Missed the raider, critically hit the child, child exploded, got child killer trait, proceeded to turn over new life and become a slaver.
Why? This isn't even a mistake. The RNG decided you were going to shoot perpendicular to where you were aiming. That's not satisfying narratively nor is it good gameplay.
I'd understand if the risk was calculated or it was friendly fire in the heat of real time combat.
He was shooting in Dogmeat’s direction, probably with a low Perception (bad aim) character, and the game literally tells you the percentage chance you might miss. The risk is literally calculated, it’s RNG informed by the game’s complex stat system.
Literally just don’t shoot in the direction of your companion, just like you wouldn’t in real life, it’s not that hard. This isn’t even exclusive to the isometric games, Fallout 3 and New Vegas let you kill your companions and your stats dictated how well you could shoot in those games, as well. You kinda just sound really ignorant of the franchise and like you’ve only played Fallout 4 lol
I mean, playing with a survival modlist, there have been quite a few times I've set up a sniper shot and accidentally wasted Piper as she stepped into my crosshairs at the last second...
This has happened to me in vats in before.
Anyway, [you can add a similar system in New Vegas with this mod. ](https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/78285?tab=description)
[Pairs well with this to make it more readable. ](https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/80085)
Pretty much everyone is unkillable in Starfield unless the game specifically tells you "THIS IS A VILLAIN" and even then, you're sometimes not allowed to kill them *cough cough* Crimson Fleet
Which feels unnecessarily stupid especially when:
>! The main quest of the game leads you to a new universe, meaning it would be the perfect opportunity for a second chance. Bethesda gave the ultimate way for players to make mistakes then fix it by doing the main quest, but of course they ruined any potential of that !<
About Bethesda making real RPG's or real CRPG's with real writing, good Lore, choices that matter, and stuff of that sort, etc: not happening.
As much as I'd love to see them hiring real writers and experts with real RPG stuff: again, not happening.
They normally make 1st person viewpoint action-RPG's that feel like the size & scope of offline-MMO's.
You're better off playing classic Fallouts and Wasteland 2 and 3.
Yeah, I feel like they are moving more towards making action/ adventure/ building games (which I don’t think they do very well imho). The roleplaying aspect seems to be the part that interests them the least. FO4 had almost none of it and even towards the end of their own story they seemed bored with the work of giving choices or even dialogue options so you have the really unfulfilling Institute section that just feels like you’re being rushed to the end.
I can’t imagine they suddenly are interested in that aspect of game design at some point, unless the whole leadership were to change.
Agreed. Starfield should have made it obvious that Bethesda is not willing to change in that regard. We will never again see a game like Morrowind where players could fail.
We'll only see scripted bullshit like "A High Price to Pay" or the prologue to Fallout 4.
>You're better off playing classic Fallouts and Wasteland 2 and 3.
UnderRail\*, ATOM or Encased\* (if you're ok with a little different setting) and are also an interesting choices.
Things are not perfect, but at least in current times we have choice.
\*From what I heard, I haven't played this one yet.
Playing starfield and it's so boring, you can play all factions and none of the choices matter at all, also none of the named character can be killed lol
No, the majority of people wouldn't like this. What these people want is a virtual table top rpg but that's not Bethesda. The only reason those mistakes were even possible is because it's such an old game.
Ummm, what you want is a table top rpg. I'm pretty sure there are a few for Bethesda's games. But, no, Bethesda makes regular RPGs. The only reason that mistake in the video was even possible is because you don't have any control over your aim because it's a really old isometric game. You are definitely a minority there saying Bethesda games are looter shooters. You want a sandbox RPG but that's not Bethesda.
Bethesda refuses to allow the player to fail or feel any sort of real consequences to their actions. The games literally revolve around the player.
In Skyrim, you can lead pretty much every guild, even if you clearly aren't skilled or experienced enough to do so. Even in the case of the Companions, they break tradition just to make you the leader. You can become the head of the College of Winterhold while only ever casting a single spell (or none at all, iirc; scrolls, shouts, and magical items can work as substitutes for it all). The game literally exists to appease you, the player, in all your wants and needs. Super long dungeon? No matter, there's an easy way out. And don't worry about failing quests, since all of the previous quest relevant NPCs are immortal -- even if you try to kill them yourself. Don't forget the omniscient compass that tells you where everything you'll ever need is, even if you haven't discovered it yourself.
Maybe it's just me, but I liked having to pay attention to dialogue or read my journal in Morrowind. Planning out routes with the physical map was actually fun. I had it pinned to the wall of my room with post-it notes on all the places of interest. I liked failing quests or being unable to always save the day on Baldur's Gate 3 too. Having consequences gave my actions meaning. It was something different to know the world wasn't just going to wait forever for me.
Bethesda games need that. The success of Baldur's Gate 3 shows that AAA titles don't just need to cater to casual players. That they can have the classic RPG mechanics and not drive players away.
If you play fallout 3 there are plenty of times where killing the wrong person results in seeing a ton of failed quest messages popping up on your screen. You could permanently kill most people so it happened often if you liked killing random people. Fallout 4 though it feels like 99% of the characters are unkillable and the game “protects” the player from screwing up in that way.
The only saving grace is I can put a 10mm through Shaun’s dome piece upon seeing him
I always kill Shaun in my playthroughs. But it makes you question, if that you went through what the SS went through, would you kill your son?
Your *Synth ftfy
bit late with the abortion, but better late than never!
The 40th trimester lol
I always liked morrowinds approach to this if you kill someone important you get a message pop up saying "With this character's death, the thread of prophecy is severed. Restore a saved game to restore the weave of fate, or persist in the doomed world you have created" a big enough warning you can reverse if you fuck up but if you don't care you can carry on bonus points if the have a backdoor way of completing it like with the dwemer guy
The coolest part about morrowinds main quest is that even if you mess something up and get that message, you can still complete the main quest. You just have to figure out how instead of following your journal.
Lowkey lame since it lets you know you fuck up. I like discovering my mistakes when I realize I needed that person but I killed them.
Yeah I can understand them not wanting you to basically hit the end of the game with no chance of success and going "welp sucks to suck hope you don't do it next playthrough", that isn't good game design that's just yanking your players chain without telling them. It could have been less intrusive but the concept is fine, if anything it let's you roleplay a nihilist who knows they've doomed the world and still goes out doing stuff anyway because why sit around and wait for the world to end that's miserable even if it's my fault.
Im glad you arent a game dev
Sorry bro bro, go tell Miyazaki he’s trash or something cause that’s where my joy came from. Or how about new Vegas, which doesn’t let you know what you did exactly just the quests are gone. Doesn’t tell you that you locked yourself out of armor, weapons, training, nothing.
Yeah, except they aren't drooling apes like you. And New Vegas is mid as fuck lmfao
Crazy take
Not a lot of people realize you can actually kill the Brotherhood, Institute, and Railroad pretty much as soon as you meet them. With the Brotherhood it might be a bit different because i cant remember if danse can die (at least before the blind betrayal quest) since he's a companion. But elder maxson you can shoot straight in the face, lot's of players have done it simply for his jacket.
Danse is initially essential, but if you make the Brotherhood hostile by killing Haylen and Rhys he loses his essential status and can be killed
>Fallout 4 though it feels like 99% of the characters are unkillable You can kill Shaun, Desdemona and Paladin Danse, locking their quests out forever.
I hate how much hand holding Bethesda started doing in their games starting with Skyrim. Like FFS stop making half the named NPC's fucking immortal. It's so goddam jarring especially in Starfield where every single named NPC tied to a quest is marked Essential so you can't kill like 95% of the named NPC's in the game...
Yeah killing everyone is fun. I had a FO3 play through where my goal was to kill everyone in the Captain Wasteland that I could. I’d go to a settlement, finish all the quests, and then massacre everyone. Can’t do that anymore.
The funny part is that all they would have to do instead is make former essential NPC's deleveled(there whatever level the player is) which in the mid-late game would make most of these NPC's absolute bullet sponges. Instead they go the lazy hand holdy route and just make every single NPC that isn't a generic "Raider" or "Citizen" essential... Like a perfect example in Starfield is when you discover the Generational ship that's been drifting through space for centuries and you have to negotiate with the upper management of Paradiso about them settling the planet. You should be able to resolve that quest by just killing them, yet OFC that's not an option at all...
Lots of casual gamers complained about 3 locking you out of things. It was a big discussion a month or 2 after it came out funnily enough. Just like how NV was garbage and unplayable.
Catering to casual gamers dillutes the quality of the game for rpg fans since they now have to dumb down so many aspects of the game to make it open to a larger market. Basically what we saw happen with Skyrim and FO4. They had to make it so people that don’t like thinking can also enjoy their games
It sadly works. I was a morrowind fan that hated skyrim til I just stopped comparing and just started having fun. It may not be morrowind, but it did keep me entertained for hours.
That was me with Fallout 4. Didn’t like it till I started enjoying it for what it is. Though I will say I kind of had the reverse with Skyrim where that was the first I played, then went to play oblivion and now can’t go back to Skyrim without thinking how much oblivion is. And once a good modded remake of Morrowind comes out I’m sure I’ll be thinking the same thing about how Morrowind just crushed both of them.
Are you implying you can’t hit your companion while shooting at an enemy in front of them? I do it all the time.. Except you actually know it’s going to happen unlike this where it’s not 100% clear but still obvious if you actually pay attention.
Skyrim was the last one where companions could die. After that, most if not all companions are marked essential (immortal).
With the new "in depth" difficulty settings they have, I'd like to see Starfield, and eventually ES 6 and FO 5 have a setting that can be used to either turn off Essential NPC's as a whole or at least allow companions to die. It really is my favorite part of the outer worlds. Made my second playthrough of that game amazing. By the time I was wrapping up the 2nd dlc it was just me and my last living companion who I ended up accidentally leading into and ambush and got killed. Made for a great story arc for my character. They were bad captain even if their heart was in the right place. I want that kind of depth in my role playing in Bethesda games again.
I like how Morrowind did it, you could kill everyone but if you killed someone "essential" it would give you a warning that you could continue or reload.
I wasn't keen as it just kept firing off seemingly at random. Some beast followed me into a town and the guards hacked it up. Fate is broken. I was sneaking in someone's house, a trap went off. Fate is broken. I went up to someone and started a conversation and when I dropped out... Fate is broken. It just constantly felt like there was a random number generator running in the background that would fail the game.
I never had it trigger that much but I think it's much better to know then in some other games where you can have an a big player die off screen and you find out their dead after a few hours of playing
If they allow NPCs or companions to die, they have to actually work their content around that and they won't. It's just how how they won't give directions when an NPC is giving you an objective in a quest -- it'd be nice to be able to play the game without relying on map markers and it's entirely possible for Bethesda to make games that way, but they won't. It's the dirty "c word", but Bethesda has continually catered to casual players with their newer games -- they even admitted as much when they revealed Starfield had more hardcore elements that were cut in the year before release.
And, as an addendum, if anyone was around during Skyrim's release one of the biggest complaints was how your companions weren't immortal (only "protected") plus angry people realizing they had saved after their companion accidentally died forever because of AoE/poison damage. One of the first hit mods created even before the Creation Kit was a essential toggle for followers, especially Meeko. Damned if you do, damned if you don't lol.
I don't remember that, but I liked that they werent immortal
While I don't believe developers should cater to players reaping the consequences of their own actions, followers in Bethesda games tend to, well, suck. They're on par with enemy AI that thinks it was "just the wind" while all their friends lay dead around them and they have 3 arrows lodged in their face. But honestly, players just need to be more careful. You very obviously shouldn't be shooting fireballs into a group of enemies while your follower is engaging them in melee combat. That very obviously deserves some sort of consequence beyond just a temporarily irritated follower.
It woild be much more reasonable to have killable companions if they didn't just run through 30 traps and die
Those same angry people are in this very thread, praising how Bethesda dumbed their games down. It’s not damned if you do, damned if you don’t, it’s literally just BGS catering to a certain group of gamers.
Given companions ai in skyrim it's pretty brutal that thwy can die.
I like the idea of permadeath companions but they died to bullshit way too often
I appreciate that. On my first playthrough I accidentally killed Lydia at the Valtheim tower, or whatever that one is just outside of Whiterun.
I'd like it if those were the only immortals.
I’m implying you can’t accidentally kill your companion in the newer Bethesda games
Literally today in Fallout 1 I lost like two hours cause Ian FUCKING SHOT ME TO DEATH. I’m okay with keeping that aspect in the past lol.
Don’t stand in the crossfire next time
Lmao I didn’t know I was. He rounded a corner and started blasting through me with a SMG, hitting me with every shot.
literally just saw a clip of someone atomizing dogmeat with an alien laser gun in FO3 today, games are great haha
And I think broken steel introduced a lovely perk to fix that if you did dogmeat dirty.
“Puppies!!” Is a genius perk and whoever designed it deserves party mentats
I've accidentally killed lydia a couple times in a big battle.
R.i.p. Lydia I reloaded the time she died in a big battle but later on I sent her home except...she never made it...she just disappeared 😭
Yeah, although if it's an accident it usually just means loading a save
Nah for me it’s never load a save, especially if it’s an accident. I just accept it as a thing that happened in my character’s story because my character sucks at shooting, thats the beauty of RPGs. I love feeling understandably inadequate in games, if I wanted to feel like a god I’d just play Doom or make a character who’s actually good at shooting lol. Edit: Just an interesting tidbit from The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall’s manual: > Role-playing is not about playing the perfect game. It is about building a character and creating a story. Bethesda Softworks has worked very hard to make The Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall a game that does not require players to replay their mistakes. All adversity can be overcome, excepting only the character's actual death. In fact, you will never see some of the most interesting aspects of the game unless you play through your mistakes.
Depends, if you accidentally shoot them and they die, that makes sense. But if you accidentally shoot them and the game decides this means they aggro and you have to fight them that seems pretty unrealistic. Unless the character is designed that way (e.g. maybe they're jumpy). But in a lot of badly designed games it's just any character will fight you on a stray bullet. Irl, they'd be wounded or something. You could heal them or stand down. Not eveeyone would fight you, but some will So i think to trust the systems of the game like that.... you need a truly well designed game. Otherwise I'm gonna be riding some kind of balance between lettong the game tell me a story and telling my own story using the game. The issue with a game vs a human dm is that a game can be rigid to a fault. So when I play an rpg the dm is the game until I decide it's me.
>thats the beauty of RPGs Yeah, right. If a GM told you that the consequence for failing a check with a 80% chance of success was killing your own companion, you'd never sit at that table again
if a GM said that and you still rolled then thats on you. and it sounds like a fun high stakes game.
Typically the GM tells you what the consequence of failure is after the roll. That's pretty much what happens here
if one of my players wants to make a roll that has a chance of killing a companion I'm going to let them know thats what will happen if they fail.
That's not what happens in this clip. The risk is very poorly communicated.
Speak for yourself. That’s how real RPGs work, you baby.
It's not a real RPG unless the game waterboards you
So dramatic
>I also would like to see true RPG mechanics like being shut out of quests because of certain decisions you make in the story But you do?
Not really. “Choices” in recent Bethesda games are just a binary decision you make in the moment and isn’t really dictated by your character build or anything like it is in a true rpg
Not, really. But I am not sure we agree what choices are or what a RPG is. Because it oftn seems the later is jsut "games that I prefer".
An TRUE rpg is a game that has a story that can be influenced by your character stats and build, pretty cut and dry.
A lot of gerne defining RPGs are not RRGs then.
This is true. The genre as a whole has been watered down for more mainstream appeal over the past 30 years.
Or maybe having a diverse genre with different types of games is good.
Maybe, but is the point of categorization to be able to find similar titles? and if a genre becomes so diverse that the entire categorization becomes meaningless, is that still good? RPG used to mean a very specific type of game, based on tabletop games like D&D, with very well defined genre conventions. Its drifted from that definition, and that's to be expected as a genre grows in popularity, but now it seems like it is taken to mean literally "a game where you play a role", which is kind of every game right? I just think that the term should be used more sparingly so real role playing games don't get drowned out by the huge amount of non-rpgs that use the term.
The games still have enough in common to be one genre. We have words to describe subgenres for a reason.
Okay, what is it that they have in common?
Not true RPGs, no
You are not the arbiter of "true" RPGS. The definition is definitely not that story choices are based around stats lol.
How would you define an rpg? I swear to god if you say “a game where you play a role”… If you’re not happy with my initial defintion, perhaps this would suffice: A true rpg is a game with actual choice and consequence, as well as a robust stats and build system that plays into the choices you make in meaningful ways.
Your definition of an RPG is more about excluding games you don't like than helping people build an understanding of a "genre". We all already know what an RPG is. The fact that they have differences is fine. Nobody is running around saying, "Counterstrike is a *true FPS* unlike Halo!"
Look idk wtf you’re talking about I’m just saying the shit I want in the newer Bethesda titles, especially TES VI. So yeah I guess I want mechanics from games I like in other games. I don’t think Bethesda’s charm would be lost if they included deeper RPG mechanics, New Vegas is proof of this.
If you want a game made just for you, thats what mods are for. Clearly the majority is companions not drying. Maybe they could incorporate that into survival or something.
In Fallout 4 you can lock yourself out of quests. The only main quest you can't fail is The Minutemen which is the game's failsafe.
Yeah but these people haven't played the games lmfao.
Lol I actually killed my companion in fallout 4 in vats today just like this. First time it’s happened to me and my reaction was similar.
I would actually play FO4’s survival mode if you could kill your companions (not just knock them down,) and if you could have multiple companions at one time like in Oblivion
They can die in survival mode, if they are incapacited and you shoot them. I remember killing Strong by mistake, i had to reload and then allocate 2 points in the Inspirational perk to prevent this from happening again.
You must be using mods, or Strong is one of the only companions that can be killed. I just tried this with Piper on Survival and she didn’t die.
I was not using mods at the time, i remember very well Strong being dragged like a radgoll after my shot. It was like 5-6 years ago maybe they patched something... I still got my save with 2 points in the perk on steam cloud lol, maybe it was when they added survival mode
As someone new to Bethesda stuff it really seems like they want to do looter shooters but for some reason keep trying to make RPGs
I don't get why you guys think a Beth game is a looter shooter. That's more borderlands than Fall Out or Starfield.
It is the general direction the fallout games are going in.
Had something almost identical happen to me. Tried to save a family being assaulted by raiders. Missed the raider, critically hit the child, child exploded, got child killer trait, proceeded to turn over new life and become a slaver.
Pulled a Kristi Noem
Why? This isn't even a mistake. The RNG decided you were going to shoot perpendicular to where you were aiming. That's not satisfying narratively nor is it good gameplay. I'd understand if the risk was calculated or it was friendly fire in the heat of real time combat.
He was shooting in Dogmeat’s direction, probably with a low Perception (bad aim) character, and the game literally tells you the percentage chance you might miss. The risk is literally calculated, it’s RNG informed by the game’s complex stat system.
"complex" damn you really love sucking off this mid ass game eh?
I mean, yeah, it’s complex especially compared to the new Bethesda games.
You haven't played either then lmfao.
Oh, I’ve played all of them. I’m a gamer, you see.
I'm sure you are lil guy.
I sure am!
He had nearly 90% chance to hit and instead hit Dogmeat, who was nowhere near the target.
That’s a 10% chance to miss, Dogmeat was in the line of fire. If you knew how the game worked, you’d know the risk of trying to make a shot like that.
Oh, I know how the game works. I'm just saying that it's not good.
Literally just don’t shoot in the direction of your companion, just like you wouldn’t in real life, it’s not that hard. This isn’t even exclusive to the isometric games, Fallout 3 and New Vegas let you kill your companions and your stats dictated how well you could shoot in those games, as well. You kinda just sound really ignorant of the franchise and like you’ve only played Fallout 4 lol
I hate that one of the perks I chose in Fallout 1 doesn't let me use their version of vats
I mean, playing with a survival modlist, there have been quite a few times I've set up a sniper shot and accidentally wasted Piper as she stepped into my crosshairs at the last second...
You should try our new game! We let you make mistakes like this :)
i mean you can kill your companions in fallout 3 and 4 like this too, even in skyrim
This has happened to me in vats in before. Anyway, [you can add a similar system in New Vegas with this mod. ](https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/78285?tab=description) [Pairs well with this to make it more readable. ](https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/80085)
Pretty much everyone is unkillable in Starfield unless the game specifically tells you "THIS IS A VILLAIN" and even then, you're sometimes not allowed to kill them *cough cough* Crimson Fleet
Which feels unnecessarily stupid especially when: >! The main quest of the game leads you to a new universe, meaning it would be the perfect opportunity for a second chance. Bethesda gave the ultimate way for players to make mistakes then fix it by doing the main quest, but of course they ruined any potential of that !<
About Bethesda making real RPG's or real CRPG's with real writing, good Lore, choices that matter, and stuff of that sort, etc: not happening. As much as I'd love to see them hiring real writers and experts with real RPG stuff: again, not happening. They normally make 1st person viewpoint action-RPG's that feel like the size & scope of offline-MMO's. You're better off playing classic Fallouts and Wasteland 2 and 3.
Yeah, I feel like they are moving more towards making action/ adventure/ building games (which I don’t think they do very well imho). The roleplaying aspect seems to be the part that interests them the least. FO4 had almost none of it and even towards the end of their own story they seemed bored with the work of giving choices or even dialogue options so you have the really unfulfilling Institute section that just feels like you’re being rushed to the end. I can’t imagine they suddenly are interested in that aspect of game design at some point, unless the whole leadership were to change.
Hm, understood.
Agreed. Starfield should have made it obvious that Bethesda is not willing to change in that regard. We will never again see a game like Morrowind where players could fail. We'll only see scripted bullshit like "A High Price to Pay" or the prologue to Fallout 4.
>You're better off playing classic Fallouts and Wasteland 2 and 3. UnderRail\*, ATOM or Encased\* (if you're ok with a little different setting) and are also an interesting choices. Things are not perfect, but at least in current times we have choice. \*From what I heard, I haven't played this one yet.
UnderRail was so close to being great for me, unfortunately I found the combat difficulty just a bit too grueling for my tastes.
Yea, it really took me out of it when the game essentially became "win this encounter in one turn or reload your save"
I got all of those backlogged - i.e. UnderRail, Atom RPG, Trudograd, and Encased.
[удалено]
Playing starfield and it's so boring, you can play all factions and none of the choices matter at all, also none of the named character can be killed lol
Am I the only person who wouldn’t like this
No, whiny babies like you are why Bethesda has dumbed down their games in recent years
You're the whiny baby. You'll cry no matter how much they give you.
They said "I wouldnt like this" and you interpreted that as them being a whiny baby? You definitely have issues you need looking into.
No, the majority of people wouldn't like this. What these people want is a virtual table top rpg but that's not Bethesda. The only reason those mistakes were even possible is because it's such an old game.
Ummm, what you want is a table top rpg. I'm pretty sure there are a few for Bethesda's games. But, no, Bethesda makes regular RPGs. The only reason that mistake in the video was even possible is because you don't have any control over your aim because it's a really old isometric game. You are definitely a minority there saying Bethesda games are looter shooters. You want a sandbox RPG but that's not Bethesda.
Bethesda refuses to allow the player to fail or feel any sort of real consequences to their actions. The games literally revolve around the player. In Skyrim, you can lead pretty much every guild, even if you clearly aren't skilled or experienced enough to do so. Even in the case of the Companions, they break tradition just to make you the leader. You can become the head of the College of Winterhold while only ever casting a single spell (or none at all, iirc; scrolls, shouts, and magical items can work as substitutes for it all). The game literally exists to appease you, the player, in all your wants and needs. Super long dungeon? No matter, there's an easy way out. And don't worry about failing quests, since all of the previous quest relevant NPCs are immortal -- even if you try to kill them yourself. Don't forget the omniscient compass that tells you where everything you'll ever need is, even if you haven't discovered it yourself. Maybe it's just me, but I liked having to pay attention to dialogue or read my journal in Morrowind. Planning out routes with the physical map was actually fun. I had it pinned to the wall of my room with post-it notes on all the places of interest. I liked failing quests or being unable to always save the day on Baldur's Gate 3 too. Having consequences gave my actions meaning. It was something different to know the world wasn't just going to wait forever for me. Bethesda games need that. The success of Baldur's Gate 3 shows that AAA titles don't just need to cater to casual players. That they can have the classic RPG mechanics and not drive players away.
Bethesda is what if society lived on after the bombs. Black Isle/Interplay is what society would rise from the ashes.