[...]As to "good" crpgs, the games that could be called crpgs because they fit crpg principles of character building and suffering the consequences to player's choices. If the player can think logically, he can get certain skills/attributes/feats, to play differently and win over the game's world in various ways. He will most probably never see all the content, because while his character/-s build lets him do X, it doesn't let him to do Y. That's why the classic Fallout games are cprg (they're not perfect and they never were, we must put the nostalgia glasses off). Because you could ace the game without a single bullet shot (except an ant in temple of trials in Fallout 2), finish the game in 20 minutes with a stealth character or play it for 100 hours in a single run with a moron shooting rockets (side note: that's why Wasteland 2 was so badly received by its initial target audience - because its character building and developing aspects are so subpar, that attributes mostly don't interact with skills - !!!). And every single time the game will be different. That is not the case with Fallout 3 (because Oblivion, although being really retarded with absurd level scaling - hint, hint it's the accessibility feature to the max that eventually broke the game - limited the player to two separate builds that couldn't be joined in a single run: a warrior and a mage, but the world was blind to it anyway and a player didn't suffer any consequence to choosing a warrior - he/she still could become the Archmage of the Mage Guild), that was meant to hold the player's hand to see everything and do everything at once. It's the game about hoovering over the landscape and shooting raiders, ghouls and orcs. BUT there were still gameplay mechanics in the engine, that could be used to make a crpg. And Obsidian did take them and managed to craft a game that is FUNDAMENTALLY different from the Fallout 3.

The only common feature - is the engine, some models and textures. It's impossible in New Vegas to do a 100% run through the content in one go. It's impossible to use everything possible. It's possible to do X while not being able to do Y and suffer consequences to it. Fallout 3 sold well, but Bethesda wanted to sell it EVEN MORE. To EVERYONE. So they threw out any "unnecessary" gameplay mechanics (a player doesn't want to waste his time in boring excel tables!) and throwing in perfect marketing material: crafting and base building. Because the survival "simulators" and Minecraft are HOT for MILLIONS WORLDWIDE, rite? And that's what they did. And it sold in TRUCKS. The notable exception of Fallout 4 is the incompetency of the developer using the same engine for almost 15 (!) years and STILL not managing to use it properly, that resulted in a partial "fanbase" (I hate this word) and game journos backlashing at it. Because from the technical standpoint, the sole "production values" standpoint, this game is dog shit. It's fucking awful and if not the marketing campaign (teen celebrities to target the audience that isn't even playing games at all!), a "Bethesda" stamp in the box and rabid fans' damage control on the Internet, this game would be universally shat on everywhere and it's "metascore" would probably sit at ~30 with comments like "an inexcusably badly put together open world shooter with extremely wonky base building". Just remove the marketing campaign, rename Bethesda with, say - C1 and rename the "Fallout" with, eh - "Mutant Apocalyptic Rampage". Doesn't look so hot now, does it? Because that's the game's name and marketing's $ are responsible for this game's success. Not the game itself.

Good crpg? There's a ton of them and even few are appearing nowadays. The most notable examples are Age of Decadence and Underrail, of course (fuck Underrail is so great even if it's combat centred). Lords of Xulima are pretty good, in my opinion (I didn't play it much, depending on my friend's opinions).
But there are tons and tons of pre 2006 games that belong strictly to crpg genre and its subrengres that hold extremely well up to this day. The Ultima series (except the last one), Wizardry (6,7,8), Betrayal at Krondor, Arcanum is a bit wonky but manages it (if you're not after the combat), Vampire the Masquarade Bloodlines, even Gothic 1-2 if you're looking for a "lite". Darklands, Deus Ex (fuck yes), M&M series (except the 9th, the 10th installment is really rudimentary on the other hand, still enjoyable). Albion, although I didn't play it in ages. These are from the top of my head, there's a fuckton of more, it's not like real crpgs are rare or something. They just don't exist in the collective's anymore. I didn't really enjoy Darklands, but it's a fucking fine game.
And on the ending note: liking/disliking has nothing to do with the objective quality of a product along the distinct genre's merits. Games are not to be consumed, they're meant to be played. Playing != tourism through the content.

I'm also not a grump if it comes to the nowadays games, really. I DO ENJOY these products as a consumer that likes from time to time sit through passively absorbing the colours on my monitor. Just as I like to visit a KFC from time to time. And I dislike some really good games that are good as games (Darklands).
On the side I just hate that games are being taken away from me as games, and being replaced with fast-food with invasive and aggressive marketing telling me that it's something it's clearly not. It's like KFC tried to invade my home to replace my home made tomato soup and pancakes with its trash food while screaming at me "IT'S JUST THE SAME! DON'T BE A HATER". That's where my hate art turns on and I go on hate spree telling people I fucking hate Fallout 4. Fuck Fallout 4 and everything it stands for trying to replace what crpg are in a collective memory.

If you get it, if you get the fundamental difference between enjoying something and the objective quality values of a certain product, I can only be content with it. Treat the above hate-fest as a general hatred fuckride on modern gaming's model that implemented the TV cable to video games telling me it's not the regression and in fact it's a progress, everything's being improved, don't be a grandpa. I can't be the same after witnessing the cringe fest straight from MTV teen show that the promotional even for Fallout 4 was.
If that game was released under the different name and without the multi-million advertisement campaing - it would be missed by everyone and rare reviews would sum it for what it is: a shit.

A bonus attachment:

Have to agree on this sentiment, as I am tired of ignorant gamers trying to say "dragon age 2 and mass effect 3 are the best rpgs of all time", when older and newer indie crps does a better job to get the table top experience like trashy games like fallout 4, skyrim, and etc.

I die inside when I see people (including the developers) claim that "The Division" is an RPG because it has depleting health bars and number floats as you shoot people with your guns that have transparent stats for you to compare against other guns. Allow me to facepalm for a minute before continuing.

*face palm*

Computer roleplaying games largely fall into one of two categories: Dungeons & Dragons pen & paper style which is simulation heavy, or narrative roleplaying where the focus is not so much on game mechanics as it is on player freedom in character expression.

In the former, the tweaking of the simulation is a way for the player to express their characters. The game mechanics aren't there solely to provide interesting tactical combat, they are also a result of the player's imagination. The stats themselves are just numbers, but we assign meaning to them in a way that brings about a fantasy that exists beyond the game mechanics. A character's eye sight is represented with a single digit in the game engine, but to the player it has more meaning than the game itself can ever replicate. This is the most common type of cRPG because it can be driven by a computer that has no creative improvisational capabilities, it only needs to provide game mechanics that are richer than their actual simulation. The dice says 126, the player imagines an arrow getting stuck in an eye. The dice says 33, the player imagines the castle guard didn't find his lie very convincing.

The other form of roleplaying game, the narrative one, largely forgoes game mechanics and systems and instead trusts in the player being imaginitive and invested in the game. These games anticipate that the player imagines what is possible within the game universe rather than analyzing the mechanics of the game and tries to cover all bases to give the illusion of freedom. I don't want to kill security guards who are just doing their jobs, I want to find another solution. This player decision may have no impact on any game mechanics, but the roleplaying expression is profound: The player does not want to portray his character as a psychopath. On the contrary, the choice not to kill may be apparent to the player, but he chooses to do so anyways because he feels this makes his character look more cold or brutal. The important thing here is that the choice is not largely driven by a dominant game mechanic. If this situation springs up in a shooting game it doesn't make it a roleplaying game, it is still primarily a shooter. On the other hand, if the game is mostly made up of open-ended choices like these, it is primarily a roleplaying game.

Deus Ex is mostly a game about using what options you have at any given moment, rarely ever pushed in any one direction, while the Mass Effect games are primarily bog standard third person shooters with no non-scripted choices, you are ALWAYS shooting, pistol whipping or force pushing your opponents about until death occurs in the proper gameplay segments. It is a game primarily driven by it's third person shooter mechanics with the roleplaying bits being a separate game altogether. The only time the player is given a chance to express themselves as Shepard is through dialogue wheels, which includes those few instances where you get to decide who lives or who dies. It is not primarily a roleplaying experience, even though it is occasionally there and makes itself look more important than it really is. Deus Ex is primarily a roleplaying game. The illusion of freedom is more important than the shooting or stealth mechanics, and so the player is able to express themselves through their interaction with both. The game mechanics are not dominant enough to define the game alone. You can't really call it a "first person shooter" because it isn't what the gameplay mostly consists of. It also isn't a "stealth game" because again, it isn't what the game mostly consists of. Even if you choose a playstyle that strictly relies on just one game mechanic you are always aware that there are options.

Options that allow you to express your character and their place in the game world. As if you're actually there and not just interacting with a game and it's hard set rules, doing stuff that a person in that world would do, not just what you as a player want to do.

No, fallout 4 isnt worht it. Any more questions?

That was pure truth.

Of course it is worth playing. It is a very fun game. Sure the creepy obsessed individuals who worship the first two games will say otherwise. After clocking 70 hrs into Fallout 4 my conclusion is simple. It is a fun action game for those who don't have their head stuck up their arse.

Have you no concept of legacy? Pick something you're a serious fan of. As in, if you were a fan of Star Wars, and they came out with a new Star Wars movie that gets called "a fun action romp", would it be be fitting for the series? "Some people do some stuff and it's amusing". That's... okay I guess. I wouldn't fault a newcomer for getting into it. But for some of us, watching a series get a bit crappier is disappointing.

I do think it's better to not to get so worked up over it. I am primarily a fan of the first two. I enjoyed the others to some degree. I beat Fallout 3. I don't rebuke them with every fiber of my being. Still, don't come at the fans for not liking that the series came down with "New Coke" syndrome.

Anyone who calls New Vegas bad, has no idea what they're talking about, and doesn't know what a good cRPG is. I suspect these people base their qualifications on superficial things like is the combat turn based or are the graphics old.

NV has just as much role playing and CnC as any of the old Fallout games.

I recommend anyone who is having a hard time getting over themselves to do so soon and give the game an earnest play through. Don't worry so much that you'll lose your old skool gamer cred for liking a game release within the last decade. Yeesh.

For my part, I've been able to enjoy the newer, more stream-lined Elder Scroll's games, but I've always found Bethesda's version of FO to be not my cup of tea. Obsidian's on the other hand...

I think FO3/4 are just mediocre shooters, really.

I thought in the end Fallout 4 kinda sucked and left me feeling disappointed but I got over 100 hours in it and I don't know if that says more about me or the game. Fallout 4's no Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel at least. Anyways, that's not really why I'm posting, I just wanted to say ^^^nice screenname^^^ and that A Confederacy of Dunces is one of my favorite books ever. Well, I have to go, I'm off to watch The Yogi Bear Show now.

You said it, bro. That's 100% accurate.

I'm really just playing devil's advocate here, because I liked NV myself, but my friend made an interesting point. He liked the fact that Fallout 3 let you point in almost any direction and start wandering. The limited, nearly on-the-rails style of NV was unappealing. I have to somewhat agree. It's flat out cruel to show you New Vegas being a mile away, then saying "oops, infinite deathclaws that way, must play for 5 hours going the long way, first." That's gonna burn some bridges for a game called "New Vegas", not "Fallout: Everywhere BUT New Vegas".

As an actual ROLE-PLAYING game, it's great! FO3 was more of an "exploration simulator". Not such a bad thing. I suppose I would have liked a little of both in NV. A bit more ability to wander freely, but with the good role-play value.

Actually it's possible to get to NV straight away if you want to - there are ways to get there that don't involve going through Deathclaws but also don't require you to follow the main plot if you don't want to. And it's nowhere near five hours if all you do is head there - even on hard mode where you need to eat/drink/sleep occasionally.

Plus there are a shit-ton of side missions in NV which are not required for anything (other than experience and reputation with factions).

Plus the ending plays out vastly differently depending on who your allies are at that stage. You can choose one of two major factions to ally with, or even tell them both to sod off and work for yourself! Optionally you can choose whether to ally with or exterminate most of the other factions (sometimes limited by your major faction alliance).

So I'm totally not seeing where this "on-rails" thing is coming from. That's like saying Fallout 2 is on rails because you can't get to SF without heading into territory patrolled by Enclave in power armor.

*Possible spoilers*. I'm not sure if I give away anything important, but it might be a little spoilery for NV and FO2.

I suppose if the game was named "Fallout 2: San Francisco", I might be a little miffed to not see San Francisco almost right away. Or to be put near it, then told "Go explore the rest of the map, and come back later."

At any rate, in Fallout 2, you can spread out to of all sorts of locations in the meantime. If you mapped out NV, it would look more like following a highway, which it literally does. I mean, let's face it. It goes Goodsprings, Primm, Mojave Outpost, Nipton, Novac, 188 outpost, New Vegas. You CANNOT deviate from this path, even if you decide to ignore the towns along the way. Tell me how to get from Goodsprings to Novac right away. You can't. There's mountains around REPCONN in the way. In Fallout 2, the game didn't halt and say "impassable mountains on this tile, click somewhere else". You might discover Vault City before discovering Redding. But in NV, you will ALWAYS go to Novac before New Vegas. You will always touch the southern part of the map before reaching New Vegas.

And don't suggest that using stealth boys to bypass the deathclaws is natural, because you're clearly not handed this information in an effort to help you get there a bit earlier. That's a veteran using some savvy to figure it out, which not everybody will. That's not in their "open world" design, it's just "a thing you can do if you figure it out".

With that rant, I'm not highly offended by it, but I definitely see it as being on a rail. If there are other ways to get to New Vegas, they are obscure enough that you'd have to play through at least once to discover them. There's certainly no "travel there now" button.

Huh, never looked at it that way before. For some reason the mountains etc. being in the way didn't make me feel like the game was rail-roading me into a direction - it just seemed to be the way the land happens to be. On reflection I agree the mountains are mainly there to restrict paths, but I think they do it reasonably unobtrusively.

The Deathclaws are a less subtle forced path blocker.

However, firstly I don't think it's a big deal - I suspect they did this to ensure you'd encounter all of the main factions prior to reaching NV.

Secondly, this "rail-roading" only really goes as far as Nipton, since from there it opens up a fair ways. On my first run through I ended up doing all sorts of side missions in out of the way places before even reaching NV. Unless you're strictly talking about the "path to NV" - which is basically just following the freeway.

TL;DR: I think I kind of get your point, but I don't think it's such a bad thing. It may not be quite as open as Fallout 2 at the beginning, but it opens up pretty quickly I think.

I may be a little bit late to a party (sorry, being awfully busy lately), but while New Vegas is highly "suggestive" for you to take southern "J" way through Primm, Nipton, and then turning North, there are at least 3 ways to go North (or relatively North) from Goodsprings/Sloan. All involves active sneaking and/or running, (mostly sneaking, as running works only with radscorpions in their gulch) and relatively impossible for lvl1 character, but doable for a bit trained one.
Blaming NV for "rairoading" us is like blaming F1 for sending us to Vault 15 so we could stumble upon Shady Sands, so we could go to Junktown, and then to Hub, and then to Necropolis and so on, or blaming F2 for mentioning Vic, Klamath, Den, Redding, Modoc, blah-blah, yadda yadda yadda, up until famous do ya feel lucky punk? Or blaming Witcher 3 for suggesting us to look for Ciri, instead of pursuing all those interesting locations... basically EVERYWHERE.
In F1/2 you could stumble upon an enemy that was a way too difficult for you, same way as deathclaws/cazadors are walling way North from Goodsprings. Yes, you can save-load scam and try to wiggle your way between random encounters with deadly enemies without being one-shot, and in some aspects it was easier, as world was rather emptiness, not wasteland, but by and large, where's the difference between F1/2 and FNV here?
In this aspect, FNV is far more logical, in F1 we are vault dweller who has about zero knowledge on outside world, so all he could have is only pre-war data stored in Vault. In F2 we have his descendant who is obviously not that well educated for obvious reasons, and outside of data stored in pip-boy, and transferred from person to person his knowledge is also limited. In FNV we have courier, who is not newcomer in this world, and despite head injury apparently holds greater knowledge on the world, including some maybe not so popular routes he could keep to himself. After all, he is courier and he is paid per delivery, so the more deliveries per same time the better. And he could have knowledge on stealth-boy. Yes, pip-boy doesn't have any data stored and player isn't spoon-fed that info, but that's hardly a problem, though one can count that as "metagaming". Yet in this case it's hard to split newcomer gamer and not so newcomer courier.
Should FNV automatically kill you by script, sort of "you shouldn't have to go there", as original Operation Flashpoint did, to keep you within mission boundaries, then we could talk about railroading. Yes, FNV doesn't have real topographical map which you could study to learn possible passages (like you can in OFP/ArmA), but what's stopping you from going sideways to learn surroundings? Not geometry glitches, mind you but real paths you actually can travel?
There are, and probably will be chokepoints in games, necessary to subtly guide new gamers (or those interested in story, which is hardly possible without proper limitations in "freedom"), or to congest them before moving to following chapter. It's like Storm of Zehir few inevitable points you have to go through, like that lumber camp or "uprising", or Mad Max, that requires you to breach the gates to get to last regions or perform few story missions to get V8 engine, or Gothic 2 that limited your access to city of Khorinis and you have several ways to get in, including just skirting it around and swimming it, just to amuse Lares or wait for being accepted into Fire mages and stroll in like a boss.
So, those who want to follow yellow brick road will follow it, and those unwilling, will chose the paths less travelled. It was kinda of funny to arrive on Skellige and do side quests before actually following main storyline. But I wasn't annoyed that I had to earn money to get there.