To preface this I don't want to spend too much time explaining what I mean here, but the TLDR is that I should be able to make multiple choices while roleplaying as myself . Yet if I roleplay as myself, meaning I try to always do the ethical thing, I am almost never presented with any ethical choices. There is usually (if that) a "good guy" option and a "bad guy" option, however since my character wanting to good is already preselected upon my roleplaying, in any decision where the only two options are "good" and "bad" I am left with no roleplaying choice since the latter isn't actually an option that makes any sense at all. So if I choose to roleplay as myself, I am left with no choice…in an RPG. Only the main faction story choice deviates at all from this while the rest of the game doesn't and it's very disappointing and makes roleplaying as myself very one dimensional. If I roleplay as a good guy the choices shouldn't suddenly be gone since as a good guy the only logical option is the good guy option which there is almost always only one "good guy option" of in FO4. This doesn't have to be like this at all, and it wasn't throughout a good chunk of New Vegas where the "right" choice wasn't always clear. Not to mention the lack of skill checks, abilities to talk yourself out of combat/make compromises, finish quests multiple ways, and all the other problems of Fallout 4. Mainly this is what I am talking about when I talk about what we should rationally expect to get in Fallout 5.
Beth doing what it thinks is the most financially viable seems to be a rational explanation for their choice/roleplaying/quest design in Fallout 4 really dropping the ball and the approach they took deciding to create a game like FO76.
A lot of this seems to boil down to people in power who make the design choices for games being beholden to shareholders and owners, and therefore primarily focusing on the business aspect, leading to all sorts of problems further down the line. Yet, I look anywhere else right now and I see the same thing everywhere. Corrupt government officials getting cozy jobs as lobbyists when they leave office and neglecting things like the environment for the money.
I feel like almost all the problems I see reported seem to come down to capitalism and how it's natural tendency. I am not saying there is a viable alternative outside of consumer awareness/culture, and regulation. What I am saying is should we expect different? If so why? Profit and monetary success is how the system works. Why should we expect truly quality content to be created, when often times there is no actual competition? Why would we expect a great game, when a good game is sometimes sufficient for success?
For example, telecom companies don't compete almost at all here in the US, yet people expect the free market to increase quality even in situations where there is no competition to drive that change. Sure you have for example the impact of poor games on other companies or certain design choices leading to lower sales (like Battlefield V), yet there is substantial competition among FPS games.
Look at Bethesda and Fallout; ultimately no other game is going to be a Fallout as Beth owns the IP. It's an incredible IP and I am not so sure, for many of us, any game will ever quite live up to what we want out of Fallout. If you plan on purchasing all (at least singleplayer ) Fallout games, you have no choice to buy Bethesda which means Beth isn't competing for your Fallout money unless that money isn't guaranteed to be allocated to Fallout. And let's face it, a large chunk of the loyal fan base loves Fallout enough that even if Fallout 5 is a repeat of 4 they will almost certainly purchase it on top of other games, rather than as a replacement. This means criticisms hardcore fans have of Fallout 4 won't change Beth's mind, because we have such a little vote (a purchase or not) in the matter if we decide to buy anyway. If the money is guaranteed then there is no competition and no reason for an increase in quality.
The money that isn't guaranteed (I am generalizing here of course) are causal fans for whom Fallout isn't a must buy. It took FO76 to have any sort of really noticeable impact, so perhaps we may expect Fallout 5 to not go at all in the FO76 route,(I already didn't believe that one bit) but why would it be any better than 4? Causal fans seem to have loved it, and that is the money that matters-the majority of the purchases and what those people think. Now I know so called casual fans would love it even more if Bethesda put heart and soul into the RPG mechanics like Obsidian did in New Vegas, but if this isn't necessary for casual fans/Bethesda's largest purchasing crowd to buy the games, then why should we expect Beth to put that love in to guarantee purchases from hardcore fans that will in all likelihood purchase anyway?
I can't write for shit right now and I am generalizing so I hope what I am saying makes sense here
So should we expect Fallout 5 to be any different than 4? Since FO4 was successful, I don't think we should. And that really hurts to think about.
© Post "Why shouldn’t we expect Fallout 5 to be a repeat of Fallout 4?/are we just seeing the effects of capitalism in action?" for game Fallout.
Top-10 Best Video Games of 2018 So Far
2018 has been a stellar year for video game fans, and there's still more to come. The list for the Best Games of So Far!
Top-10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2019
With 2018 bringing such incredible titles to gaming, it's no wonder everyone's already looking forward to 2019's offerings. All the best new games slated for a 2019 release, fans all over the world want to dive into these anticipated games!