Crispy™ Have we hit PEAK RPG?

[Lilura]

You are mixing up your own so-called personal "incline" with actual incline. In my holy texts, it is written that incline is about the games themselves rather than one's newfound good taste, widescreen mods or increased accessibility for the plebs through 3rd party clients.

Why did I use quotes there? Because playing Fallout for the first time 21 years after it came out is hardly incline. More like an embarrassment. The horse bolted two decades ago. That's when the incline was.

And you have 200+ "quality RPGs" in your backlog and yet didn't get around to playing the greatest pure RPG ever until now? Double embarrassment.

Even if true, it is funny to me that someone would admit to those things on the 'Dex. Better to keep embarrassing things to yourself.

Also, Renaissance aficionados are not upset. Since 1996, we have basked in the radiant glory of the inexhaustible Renaissance.

There is no end of happiness in sight for us. We don't look forward with hope, we don't look backwards with regret. We've always been in the Renaissance, and we always will be.

 

[TemplarGR]

You are mixing up your own so-called personal "incline" with actual incline. In my holy texts, it is written that incline is about the games themselves rather than one's newfound good taste, widescreen mods or increased accessibility for the plebs through 3rd party clients.

Why did I use quotes there? Because playing Fallout for the first time 21 years after it came out is hardly incline. More like an embarrassment. The horse bolted two decades ago. That's when the incline was.

And you have 200+ "quality RPGs" in your backlog and yet didn't get around to playing the greatest pure RPG ever until now? Double embarrassment.

Even if true, it is funny to me that someone would admit to those things on the 'Dex. Better to keep embarrassing things to yourself.

Also, Renaissance aficionados are not upset. Since 1996, we have basked in the radiant glory of the inexhaustible Renaissance.

There is no end of happiness in sight for us. We don't look forward with hope, we don't look backwards with regret. We've always been in the Renaissance, and we always will be.

The original Fallout games were shit in many ways. They have one of the most broken character systems i have ever encountered in more than 300 rpgs i have personally played. You know, the character system were out of the how many they were, 20? skills, only about 3-4 really mattered and the rest were fluff. You just needed small guns and power armor and turned the game into God mode. You might get some usage out of barter for prices, steal (especially in 2 for stealing stores), speech for a couple of checks, perhaps lockpicking if you don't care about exploding doors, but most of the time this shit was just small guns + power armor. One of the most retarded and useless character systems that ever existed in a video game, surpassed only by retarded garbage like Wasteland 2 were you had 5 skills per 1 of fallout, to do the same fucking thing... A sperg's dream...

Also, they were really short, the dialogue was really cringe when you look at it objectively, the story was bollocks, the graphics were mediocre, the UI was terribad, enemy variety was non-existent, unique locations were few and far between, "cities" were 1 screen wide, performance of the game on-then-top-of-the-line-pcs was GARBAGE for the graphics it had, and it had more bugs than the amazon river.

The fact that you spergs have put these flawed-but-good games on a Pedestal and refuse to adopt with the times, says more about your personal mental well-being than about the state of the industry in 2018...

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Guy says Fallout is shit because it’s too easy to make overpowered builds... goes on to say that speech is only relevant for a “couple checks.” Makes no mention of energy weapons...

I mean, if you’re going to bash Fallout for being too easy when you play the most optimized possible character, at least get the build right. It’s the Gifted DiploSniper (tagging speech, small guns and arguably lockoick), then you switch from small guns to energy weapons (Tag! at lvl 12 if you want to conserve skill points) once you get your hands on at least a laser rifle. If you’re going to bitch about god mode, get god mode right: hardened power armor + turbo-charged plasma rifle + Bonus Rate of Fire perk at lvl 9 so your base attack costs only 3AP. Then, yes, you are a god, but you don’t have to play that way and the game makes you jump through some serious hoops to get power armor

Yes, Fallout’s skills are unbalanced. That’s good! It makes the game far more replayable. If you’re just making the same character every time, you don’t understand even a third of what the original Fallouts have to offer. And you sure as shit haven’t seen the whole game.

Just because some builds are more powerful than others, that doesn’t mean these other skills are useless. Tim Cain bent over backwards to make sure Fallout (and nearly all of the quests in Fallout) could be completed as a talker, a thief, or a killer. The variety of potential quest solutions is downright insane. So sneak and steal are both very useful if you want to play a stealth character (who can kick a lot of ass as either a melee sneak attacker or a sniper). This is the best thing about OG Fallout and Arcanum and to a lesser extent Bloodlines.

You can beat the game without killing anyone as a sneaky diplomat. You can beat the game as a combat specialist with 1 INT—meaning you can’t really have much of a conversation with anyone—who murders everyone before they have a chance to open their mouths. Melee builds are actually a lot of fun, as are throwing builds.

You can buy your way through much of the game by pumping up Barter, because at some point above 100 you can buy and sell the same product from the same merchant and turn a profit. I never take barter above 40 because it feels too much like cheating and it’s not necessary.

Doctor and First Aid both have real utility when you play with the original mutant invasion timer because you can’t really afford to rest spam. There are also some worthwhile uses for repair and science, although they’re less frequent in Fallout than Fallout 2. Outdoorsman sucks in 1, but it’s got a lot of utility in 2, especially if you’re going for a pacifist run. Gambling is useless in 1 and not good in 2. Traps I’ve never really tried, except in the Fallout of Nevada mod where they rock (highly recommended). Unarmed kinda sucks in 1 but is very viable in 2 and also unlocks two cool quest chains.

Them’s the skills. You neglect to mention traits or perks or even SPECIAL. There is an incredible amount of reactivity based off of those core SPECIAL stats (no one builds in as much reactivity as Cain, Boyarsky and Jason Anderson). Again, if you keep playing with the same build, you’ve only played a fraction of Fallout.

Also, they were really short, the dialogue was really cringe when you look at it objectively, the story was bollocks, the graphics were mediocre, the UI was terribad, enemy variety was non-existent, unique locations were few and far between, "cities" were 1 screen wide, performance of the game on-then-top-of-the-line-pcs was GARBAGE for the graphics it had, and it had more bugs than the amazon river.
.

Most of what you’re saying here is flat out bullshit.

Sure, the first one is short, but it’s just as long as it needs to be and what is there is very tight. Fallout 2 is much, much longer—that is not a short game, end of story. As for the dialogue, there may be a few cringey moments in the second one, but in general Fallout 1 & 2 are still some of the best written RPGs out there. The game performed perfectly fine on my out of date PC in ‘97 and Fallout 1 had very few notable bugs on release, especially relative to modern shit. Cities were NOT one screen wide, especially not in the resolution you would’ve been playing it with in ‘97 (you know the green borders let you travel to the other maps within the same city, right?). Even the smallest town has two maps. You talk about Fallout like you only ever played it with the high-res mod in the last decade so it rings hollow when you comment on the release.

tl;dr you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

The original Fallout games were shit in many ways.

Everything is shit in many ways, hardly a dealbreaker.

 

[Zakhad]

snip

tl;dr you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

This post is better than this terrible thread deserves.

 

[Lilura]

Unarmed kinda sucks in 1

Au contraire, Fast Shot works with H2H and stacks with Bonus H2H for epic attack rate. Then we add in Slayer.

You can buy your way through much of the game by pumping up Barter, because at some point above 100 you can buy and sell the same product from the same merchant and turn a profit. I never take barter above 40 because it feels too much like cheating and it’s not necessary.

Barter also facilitates skill-ups through the reading of skillbooks in The Hub. But ofc, your prestigious post is 100% on the money in that none of the brokenness changes the fact that Fallout is GOAT. Behead anyone who disagrees.

That bacterial infection should read this in order to get educated.

 

[Corvinus]

Despite the threat from Lilura above I think I get what you are trying to say, TemplarGR; Fallout 1-2 may not be as good as their reputation, but your mediterrenean prose shines through (making over-the-top claims of dubious validity, seasoned with a smattering of insults) and is of no help to you. It is also hard to take you seriously when you like to use empty buzzwords like these:

broken fluff God mode garbage sperg cringe mediocre terribad GARBAGE spergs industry

While the use of the word

terribad

in a sentence instantly marks your opinion about anything as a waste of time and flesh, I'd still like to pick apart your conclusion about the game:

Also, they were really short

Compared to what? It could take many hours to complete either of the games, and most "present" games I've played were shorter and / or had less content of value.

the dialogue was really cringe when you look at it objectively

You clearly aren't objective, but subjective. This hurts your stance unless you provide some example of (or directions to) what isn't bad dialogue.

the graphics were mediocre

I remember playing it when it was new, and I thought that it looked good! Hardly mediocre (if you didn't know it means "average", not bad). I'd wager that most could agree that the graphics certainly have character - which mediocre stuff tend to lack.

the UI was terribad

See comment above. Regarding the UI part: With no mention of "why" this only makes it look like you are grasping for straws at this point.

enemy variety was non-existent

This is outright false.

unique locations were few and far between

Wouldn't they, per definition, be few and far between as they are unique?

"cities" were 1 screen wide

Bleh. What about the content of said dwellings? Quantity isn't directly related to quality.

performance of the game on-then-top-of-the-line-pcs was GARBAGE for the graphics it had

Maybe what went for top-of-the-line in Greece, but I doubt it. I have zero recollection of it being especially demanding, and my PC wasn't the best.

it had more bugs than the amazon river.

Yet another claim without substance.

These are just examples from your last post, but perhaps you can see how "arguments" like these only harms your reputation further.

 

[TemplarGR]

Guy says Fallout is shit because it’s too easy to make overpowered builds... goes on to say that speech is only relevant for a “couple checks.” Makes no mention of energy weapons...

I mean, if you’re going to bash Fallout for being too easy when you play the most optimized possible character, at least get the build right. It’s the Gifted DiploSniper (tagging speech, small guns and arguably lockoick), then you switch from small guns to energy weapons (Tag! at lvl 12 if you want to conserve skill points) once you get your hands on at least a laser rifle. If you’re going to bitch about god mode, get god mode right: hardened power armor + turbo-charged plasma rifle + Bonus Rate of Fire perk at lvl 9 so your base attack costs only 3AP. Then, yes, you are a god, but you don’t have to play that way and the game makes you jump through some serious hoops to get power armor

Yes, Fallout’s skills are unbalanced. That’s good! It makes the game far more replayable. If you’re just making the same character every time, you don’t understand even a third of what the original Fallouts have to offer. And you sure as shit haven’t seen the whole game.

Just because some builds are more powerful than others, that doesn’t mean these other skills are useless. Tim Cain bent over backwards to make sure Fallout (and nearly all of the quests in Fallout) could be completed as a talker, a thief, or a killer. The variety of potential quest solutions is downright insane. So sneak and steal are both very useful if you want to play a stealth character (who can kick a lot of ass as either a melee sneak attacker or a sniper). This is the best thing about OG Fallout and Arcanum and to a lesser extent Bloodlines.

You can beat the game without killing anyone as a sneaky diplomat. You can beat the game as a combat specialist with 1 INT—meaning you can’t really have much of a conversation with anyone—who murders everyone before they have a chance to open their mouths. Melee builds are actually a lot of fun, as are throwing builds.

You can buy your way through much of the game by pumping up Barter, because at some point above 100 you can buy and sell the same product from the same merchant and turn a profit. I never take barter above 40 because it feels too much like cheating and it’s not necessary.

Doctor and First Aid both have real utility when you play with the original mutant invasion timer because you can’t really afford to rest spam. There are also some worthwhile uses for repair and science, although they’re less frequent in Fallout than Fallout 2. Outdoorsman sucks in 1, but it’s got a lot of utility in 2, especially if you’re going for a pacifist run. Gambling is useless in 1 and not good in 2. Traps I’ve never really tried, except in the Fallout of Nevada mod where they rock (highly recommended). Unarmed kinda sucks in 1 but is very viable in 2 and also unlocks two cool quest chains.

Them’s the skills. You neglect to mention traits or perks or even SPECIAL. There is an incredible amount of reactivity based off of those core SPECIAL stats (no one builds in as much reactivity as Cain, Boyarsky and Jason Anderson). Again, if you keep playing with the same build, you’ve only played a fraction of Fallout.



Most of what you’re saying here is flat out bullshit.

Sure, the first one is short, but it’s just as long as it needs to be and what is there is very tight. Fallout 2 is much, much longer—that is not a short game, end of story. As for the dialogue, there may be a few cringey moments in the second one, but in general Fallout 1 & 2 are still some of the best written RPGs out there. The game performed perfectly fine on my out of date PC in ‘97 and Fallout 1 had very few notable bugs on release, especially relative to modern shit. Cities were NOT one screen wide, especially not in the resolution you would’ve been playing it with in ‘97 (you know the green borders let you travel to the other maps within the same city, right?). Even the smallest town has two maps. You talk about Fallout like you only ever played it with the high-res mod in the last decade so it rings hollow when you comment on the release.

tl;dr you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

The fact that this garbage post gets positive votes here, proves that rpgcodex does not know anything about RPGs...

1) The game is not "easy to break". You don't break the game. "Breaking the game" means you use a glitch, a loophole, you utilize the system in a smart way to break it. You don't need to do that in Fallout in order to make it a FUCKING CAKEWALK. All you need is to tag small arms, which is something that 99% of the playthroughs (unless you play a melee character) do, and just put on a proper armor. That's it. Then the game becomes DEAD EASY.

2) Just because a skill has limited usability under certain circumstances, does not mean it is useful or well designed. When i have to pick between putting points in small arms or let's say outdoorsman, the choice is easy. 7/10 of the skills in fallouts could just as well been PERKS. And the game would have been better as a result. That's how situational those skills are.

3) Most perks suck. They just modify percentages a bit. Only a few of the perks modify gameplay enough

4) Both fallouts are so short, they would be considered a SCAM if released for 60$ today. The original fallout has like 10 unique locations total, and Fallout 2 has like 5 more. The rest are random encounters. The games have extremely low *real* content and rely on multiple playthroughs to get your money's worth. They also rely a lot on battles takeing FOREVER to finish due to how the turn based combat works. Even if you use the fastest setting, it is still ridiculously slow. If the combat was resolved faster, the average Fallout playthrough would be 2-3 hours tops

5) The story of Fallout is GARBAGE. As is the writting. The only reason it worked was because it had many funny and zanny moments. If taken as a serious story, it is so GARBAGE, that you need to have -40 IQ to enjoy it. Seriously. It is the first time ever that someone tells me the writting in Fallout was good. I can't believe i am reading this shit. You are delusional.

6) Fallout 1 and 2 performed like GARBAGE on Pentium computers of the day. Especially considering that the graphics were trash, as was the animation. Baldur's gate, a game in REAL TIME with far better graphics, more sprites, bigger maps, incredible particle effects, performed MUCH BETTER than this shit, on the same computer. You are obviously a 12 year old and never played the game day 1 on a then-top-of-the-line-pc. Like i did. So shut the fuck up. They were also too buggy. Fallout 2 literally corrupted my saves again and again and again and again. My car's trunk was missing everytime and i lost items. That game was SHIIIIIIIIT. Even when patched it had so many bugs i am surprised i suffered to completion back in the day.

In the end, Fallout 1 and 2 are overrated pieces of trash that spergs on this forum overhype but normal people wouldn't play this shit even if paid today....

 

[rusty_shackleford]

FO2 is listed at 86½ hours for a completionist playthrough: https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=3339

near identical to titles such as Dark Souls 3, Dragon Age Origins, and Gothic 2.

 

[TemplarGR]

Au contraire, Fast Shot works with H2H and stacks with Bonus H2H for epic attack rate. Then we add in Slayer.



Barter also facilitates skill-ups through the reading of skillbooks in The Hub. But ofc, your prestigious post is 100% on the money in that none of the brokenness changes the fact that Fallout is GOAT. Behead anyone who disagrees.

That bacterial infection should read this in order to get educated.

I am not going to read your worthless garbage blog, so don't link to it.

Fallout is good only to serve as a template on what a true CRPG should be. But it is not the "greatest", in the grand scheme of things it was just an influencial and good-for-its-time crpg. If judged in 2018, it is trash, plain and simple. Outside of the codex, no one cares about Fallout 1 and 2. And i am willing to bet that 80% of the codex wouldn't install it and play it in 2018, because they correctly recognize it has aged like spoiled milk and it sucks.

 

[TemplarGR]

FO2 is listed at 86½ hours for a completionist playthrough: https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=3339

near identical to titles such as Dark Souls 3, Dragon Age Origins, and Gothic 2.

What? I have seen everything this shit game has to offer and it didn't take nearly so many hours... This metric is garbage.

 

[Neanderthal]

And there's no goats in the wasteland.

 

[TemplarGR]

WTF. Just visited "how long to beat" and it says just finishing the main story in Fallout 2 takes 32 hours? HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

My GOD, a RETARD WITH NO HANDS perhaps took 32 hours...

I completed that garbage game in 1999 in less than 15 on my first playthrough and i was fooling around... With no internet guides and wikis.... OMG this site is so much garbage...

 

[Black Angel]

A toast to anybody who tagged TemplarGR with

Cheers!

 

[Corvinus]

WTF HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GOD RETARD garbage OMG garbage

Aside from Fallout, how do you feel about other games, such as Super Mario Bros 3? I noticed that your image is that of Mario, the italian plumber. Do you fancy Nintendo games in general, or have you ceased playing them?

 

[Lord_Potato]

WTF. Just visited "how long to beat" and it says just finishing the main story in Fallout 2 takes 32 hours? HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

My GOD, a RETARD WITH NO HANDS perhaps took 32 hours...

I completed that garbage game in 1999 in less than 15 on my first playthrough and i was fooling around... With no internet guides and wikis.... OMG this site is so much garbage...

Are you sure you are not a new incarnation of fckndggrfll or how this retard called himself when he shitted on Fallout 2 to praise the infamous Bethesda sequel?

While I agree Fallout 1 is kind of short (but with great replayability), Fallout 2 is one of the bigger games out there. Also with replayability caused by different builds and C&C.

All the other points you make are pure shit, therefore I rated your contributions to this thread accordingly.

 

[Sigourn]

Have we?

We had hit peak RPG 1 year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. 40 years ago even, on PLATO mainframe. At any moment in time, we have the best RPGs there exist so far. Modern cRPGs don't stand up to the classics. That only means no better cRPG exists, yet. My opinion is controversial (on the Codex, it means "you are retarded"), but whatever: making a good RPG isn't hard. It's just that the industry doesn't have good RPGs as a priority.

Are you going to tell me it is THAT hard to come up with a few good choices & consequences in a videogame? Are you going to tell me it is THAT hard to play older cRPGs, see what worked and what didn't, and use that as a base to improve upon? The only hard thing about making cRPGs isn't exclusive to cRPGs. The only hard thing is to write an interesting world with interesting characters. If you have that (Fallout, New Vegas, Arcanum, Deus Ex, Gothic; I didn't like Baldur's Gate at all) then making a good cRPG is just a matter of "I want to make a good cRPG".

It all boils down to the writing, really. Coming up with an idea, a quest, and then expanding on it, fleshing it out, deciding what the player could possibly want to do. One needs to be a literal retard to believe the art of writing was lost. It's just that the people in charge are retarded: who in their goddamn minds could think a wall of exposition constitutes "good writing"? I really would like to have a talk with the Obsidian staff.

1. Non-generic setting.
2. No walls of text.
3. Turn-based combat.

There, your game is now 300% better.

 

[TemplarGR]

Aside from Fallout, how do you feel about other games, such as Super Mario Bros 3? I noticed that your image is that of Mario, the italian plumber. Do you fancy Nintendo games in general, or have you ceased playing them?

My opinion on the original Fallouts, is the same as with other classic games like Super Mario Bros 3...

Super Mario Bros 3, if you played it in 1987, was a masterpiece of game design. It pushed the fucking NES to the limit, and produced the best platformer of the 80s... Given that gaming wasn't as advanced as it is now, by late 80s standards it was a VERY INFLUENTIAL GAME.

Still, 30+ years later, aside from history study reasons, no one has any reason to play that game. It has been surpassed in every way possible. It is an obsolete relic. I revisit it from time to time for nostalgia sake but i would never suggest to newer players to play it, unless they wanted to see how things were back then. Also, i wouldn't call it the "best platformer ever" in any discussion about "peak platformers"...

It had many flaws if looked upon with a modern eye, and it is a waste of time playing it today instead of modern platformers.

And that's my opinion for games like the original Fallouts too...

They were classic games back in the day. But even in 1997 computer magazines of the day didn't lose their minds over the fallouts, and neither did the gaming public, with sales numbers being abysmal even by late 90s standards... I remember most publications giving Fallout 1 and 2 around 80-85/100...

As for today? They have been surpassed in every way. There is no reason for a modern crpg gamer to play Fallout 1 and 2, unless he really wants to study history, is REALLY into the fallout universe/wasteland games, or is just bored with plenty of time to spare.

Hell, i would rather play Fallout 3, 4, or New Vegas, instead of Fallout 1 and 2.

People on the codex for some odd reason i can't explain seem to have a strange fetish for mediocre 90s RPGs no one cares about anymore... They put them on a pedestal and worship them as Gods, despite their SERIOUS FLAWS, that they ignore because reasons...

Yet the same idiots hate modern attempts at CRPGs like PoE with a passion, even though they are objectively speaking better games than their sacred cows...

I suppose autism is like that...

 

[rusty_shackleford]

PoE wasn't a "modern attempt" at an RPG, it was a poor emulation of a 20 year old RPG.

 

[Sigourn]

As for today? They have been surpassed in every way. There is no reason for a modern crpg gamer to play Fallout 1 and 2, unless he really wants to study history, is REALLY into the fallout universe/wasteland games, or is just bored with plenty of time to spare.

Hell, i would rather play Fallout 3, 4, or New Vegas, instead of Fallout 1 and 2.

Don't confuse "I find it more fun" for "everyone finds it more fun". It's the simplest way to say it, as opposed to explaining why two of them are great RPGs, another is a flawed RPG, another is a bad RPG, and the other is no RPG at all.

There's one fundamental difference between those five that it is impossible to ignore: two are isometric turn-based games, the others are first-person shooters.

 

[GrainWetski]

My opinion on the original Fallouts, is the same as with other classic games like Super Mario Bros 3...

Super Mario Bros 3, if you played it in 1987, was a masterpiece of game design. It pushed the fucking NES to the limit, and produced the best platformer of the 80s... Given that gaming wasn't as advanced as it is now, by late 80s standards it was a VERY INFLUENTIAL GAME.

Still, 30+ years later, aside from history study reasons, no one has any reason to play that game. It has been surpassed in every way possible. It is an obsolete relic. I revisit it from time to time for nostalgia sake but i would never suggest to newer players to play it, unless they wanted to see how things were back then. Also, i wouldn't call it the "best platformer ever" in any discussion about "peak platformers"...

It had many flaws if looked upon with a modern eye, and it is a waste of time playing it today instead of modern platformers.

And that's my opinion for games like the original Fallouts too...

They were classic games back in the day. But even in 1997 computer magazines of the day didn't lose their minds over the fallouts, and neither did the gaming public, with sales numbers being abysmal even by late 90s standards... I remember most publications giving Fallout 1 and 2 around 80-85/100...

As for today? They have been surpassed in every way. There is no reason for a modern crpg gamer to play Fallout 1 and 2, unless he really wants to study history, is REALLY into the fallout universe/wasteland games, or is just bored with plenty of time to spare.

Hell, i would rather play Fallout 3, 4, or New Vegas, instead of Fallout 1 and 2.

People on the codex for some odd reason i can't explain seem to have a strange fetish for mediocre 90s RPGs no one cares about anymore... They put them on a pedestal and worship them as Gods, despite their SERIOUS FLAWS, that they ignore because reasons...

Yet the same idiots hate modern attempts at CRPGs like PoE with a passion, even though they are objectively speaking better games than their sacred cows...

I suppose autism is like that...

You're right, that one was released a mere 2 years later.

 

[TemplarGR]

PoE wasn't a "modern attempt" at an RPG, it was a poor emulation of a 20 year old RPG.

No, it was a great spiritual successor to an all-time classic. It was the fucking thing the crowdfunding crowd demanded. All you codexers crying "decline" for years and wishing for a new Baludr's Gate, and when it came, you cried like spoiled princesses not wanting what you want...

 

[Corvinus]

My opinion on the original Fallouts, is the same as with other classic games like Super Mario Bros 3...

Well then. But you have written that:

Storyfags are to blame for the destruction of the RPG genre

How does that factor into things if the RPG genre is destroyed today? If the older games have been surpassed, I mean. Would you care to elaborate?

 

[TemplarGR]

Don't confuse "I find it more fun" for "everyone finds it more fun". It's the simplest way to say it, as opposed to explaining why two of them are great RPGs, another is a flawed RPG, another is a bad RPG, and the other is no RPG at all.

There's one fundamental difference between those five that it is impossible to ignore: two are isometric turn-based games, the others are first-person shooters.

1) I am not confusing ANYTHING. It is YOU people who confuse the "i find it more fun" for "Everyone finds it more fun". We had that autistic "lady blogger" previously claiming that Fallout is the greatest crpg of all time, and i responded to that. Just because she finds Fallout great does not mean the general public does.

According to sales numbers, the most accurate and objective possible metric to judge what people find fun, the original 2 Fallouts were not fun at all, with sales numbers so low that even an indie release today would consider an utter failure. Also not many people still play those 2.

On the other hand, games like Fallout 3 and 4 have literally broken sales records and people still play those like maniacs.

So yeah, i don't believe "Everyone finds more fun" the original fallouts vs the newer ones.

2) No one is the absolute authority on what a crpg is and is not. Just because you imagine that Fallout 4 is not a crpg, does not mean it is not. It is definitely part crpg, it has a detailed character system with stats that influence combat directly, it has lots of NPCs and C&C, etc etc. It is an action-rpg that is perfectly valid. Not every crpg needs to be a sperg-fest spreadsheet simulator.

3) Technical limitations often influence the genre of the game, and what is considered possible. Back in the 1970s developers couldn't create openworld crpgs like Skyrim and Witcher 3, even if they wanted. It was not because gamers in the 70s and 80s didn't want to play such games, it was because the technology wasn't there to make them.

Similarly, back in the 90s, isometric was the best way to deliver quality art representation for rpgs of the day.

Fast forward to late 2000s and 2010s, and the technology is there for RPGs to deliver rich 3D open worlds. And that is the standard that modern crpgs need to strive for.

So yes, it is perfectly valid to compare the older fallouts to the newer ones, even if they have changed perspective. The old isometric perspective was a technology limitation, not a design choice.

The only reasons people make the isometric choice today, is because of 2 reasons and only 2 reasons:

1) You want to deliver a tactical party based game

2) You have budget constraints and can't create a 3D game

The 1st reason does not apply to Fallout. It is a single character game, with henchmen for party members. There is no reason to make an isometric Fallout today, if you have the capability to make a 3D game.

That is why it is perfectly valid to compare Fallout 1 and 2 with 3, NV, and 4. They are different due to years passed and better technology, not due to design choice. And the newer games are vastly better and more fun, for more people.

If you disagree, ask yourself this: How many single character RPGs with an isometric perspective get released these days, and are in any way succesful? You can find plenty of party-based, but how many "fallout type" single character crpgs get released?

It makes no sense, really. Having rich 3D open worlds, voice acted characters, cutscenes, etc, is a vast improvement for modern crpgs. Things the original Fallouts lack.

That is why, claiming that those 20 year old games are still unsurpassed, is retarded.

 

[Egosphere]

I am sure this has nothing to do with demographics and relative IQ differences between evolutionary population groups.

There was a paper by Bratsberg and Rogeberg for declining iqs in norway. Biggest factor is dysgenics, which swamps the impact of immigration.