OneFiercePuppy: (I can countenance still calling Fallout an RPG into 3/NV, but saying gameplay is similar in a shooter to an isometric tactical turn-based game? Bleh.)

Leroux: I haven't played it much, but isn't there a huge leap between Red Faction and Red Faction 2 already, regarding the setting and the way how characters are presented? There are gameplay changes, too, like switching from save everywhere to checkpoints, and no destructible environment, IIRC, but I think I read about the connection between the settings of the two games being very loose, and the characters seem to have a wacky style almost reminiscent of anime, compared to the realistic looks they were going for in the first game.

So yeah, RF Guerilla turned a linear FPS series into open world TPS, but regarding the presentation, it might have more in common again with the first game than the second game had?

Lord_Kane: since the devs are well known for the saints row series as well.

Lord_Kane: Oh dont get me wrong

GR00T: I guess I look at Fallout as mostly a setting and not a specific game type. (i.e. to me what defines Fallout isn't turn-based and isometric, but the setting and the ability to build your character the way you want).

OneFiercePuppy:

OneFiercePuppy: In which case, if you haven't played 4, you should. With gaining one perk per level, and having no direct skills, Bethesda in effect took away the you-must-max-Int metagame that plagued SPECIAL. No matter how you want to play your character, you get good at things just as fast as any other build.

F4 isn't a bad open-world game. It's not even a bad open-world game set in the Fallout world. It's just a bad story-based RPG. If that won't bother you, you should give it a spin.

Telika: Not sure what you mean. John Boorman's ? It's the most accurate representation of the arthurian cycle that I know of. Except maybe Eric Rohmer's Perceval, but haven't seen it yet.

And I'm speaking as an avid reader of XIth century litterature.