By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SvennoJ on 19 November 2015
Edit Thread
HoloDust said:
pokoko said:

That's actually the part that I found kind of amusing because, you know, you can move the pieces in every way.  What's stopping you?  Physical limitations?  No, what is stopping you is that you and the person you're playing have decided to play a particular way.

That's the dichotomy here.  Freedom doesn't have to be chaos, it can simply be a blank slate where you can make your own rules.  Some people like that, some don't.  You can't tell me that one way is right and another way is wrong, especially when it comes to artificial class rules that rope you off from portions of the game.  

In this case, I'm very glad to see the strength restrictions on guns go away.  That was an annoying roadblock in former games that broke immersion.  Not even being able to equip an assault rifle until I got one more point just felt silly.  In Fallout 4, you can use a mini-gun but you won't be nearly as good with it as someone who has high strength and has the mini-gun perk.  I'm perfectly fine with that.  It's still a game where you need to specialize to see the best results.

 


Yeah, well give someone in real life minigun with similiar in-game physique as in 'Small frame' (as in FO1/2/NV trait) that is weak (like my character with STR 3), and see how they do.

As for chess analogy, it's actually great one, pieces indeed theoretically can move wherever you like them, but if you do not play by very set rules, you're not playing chess. If you play chess against software, it won't allow you illegal moves, but you won't make any, since you're playing...you now, chess.

Now if you want to wield minigun, you should have requirements and rules that govern that, not your self-restrain mechanism on. Of course, it seems you're fine with them removing strength restriction, but what I'm reading from that is that you don't really want Fallout RPG, but Fallout FPS with RPG elements...like Far Cry and similar games.

Maybe you should get back to the basics of what RPG stands for :) Role playing game. You play a role. Who makes the rules is not important. I rather set my own rules and define the role of my character the way I want to. Long time ago when I used to play AD&D the rules were always negotiable :) Same as the story was always flexible. That's what I still miss most in RPG games, a DM that makes the game more fun instead of strictly applying a set of arbitrary rules.

I'm my own DM, set my own goals, make my own path, create my own story. I'm loving all the freedom and there are tons of things around to stimulate your imagination. The witcher 3 is great at story telling, and it's certainly fun to follow a story too. Yet it tries to be a free open world game at the same time which clashes with the story side. It's like I was playing to different characters, story mode Geralt and Geralt the explorer. I don't feel that disconnect in Fallout 4.

Rating the two games I would say
The witcher 3: story/lore 9.5 gameplay/openworld 8.0 (ignoring the filler content)
Fallout 4: story/lore 8.5 gameplay/openworld 8.5 (ignoring the bugs and glitches)

The witcher 3 has a better averaged score, yet F4 feels balanced and edges out TW3 on gameplay.