In the article, On the failure of Fallout 4 at the hands of The Witcher 3, Moosa claims that the default reaction of violence in video games effects the gameplay and story experience. I completely agree. I have never played Fallout but have seen some play-throughs and reaction videos to get the gist. You are constantly fighting something in the game, and everything revolves around fighting just as Moosa claims.
“The problem isn’t that these games include combat, but that combat is relied upon as the primary method of engaging with their detailed, incredible worlds.” (Moosa) Having a game that revolves around violence effects the story experience in that the player always knows what to expect, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The gameplay should be consistent, you can’t be used to going around shooting things then all of a sudden you’re sent on a driving mission half way through the game. Though then Moosa goes on to point out how your decisions in dialogue don’t effect the outcome. I would rather have a diologue where I can choose what to say, even if it effect very little, than to just sit and watch a cutscene with no quick time events. I would rather let the game fool me into thinking I;m doing something so that’s where I disagree with Moosa.
Yet I don’t know what’s worse, a game revolved only around fighting, or a game you assume would be all fighting but then they through puzzles in that only hinder the gameplay. Sticking to the theme of the story is better than trying to switch up the game play, because then you may get some confused and irritated players. (Me!)