Fallout 4

[CPA]

I would love for a larger landscape, possibly the size a large city. On that note, I would love it if it were half city with fully explorable buildings and subway and whatnot and the other half a serious dense forest wilderness.

Really? you want fully explorable skyscrapers (most big cities have them). That would take hours of tedious room searching and stair climbing. I like the big city concept, but can't imagine searching every building.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Really? you want fully explorable skyscrapers (most big cities have them). That would take hours of tedious room searching and stair climbing. I like the big city concept, but can't imagine searching every building.

It would be kind of neat to make them basically random dungeons, generated the first time you open the door. Completely unnecessary for the main plot of the game, but would add hundreds of extra hours of game play.

For those asking for a non-USA Fallout; that is not what Fallout is about. Fallout is strongly about satirising American early cold-war nostalgia. It takes all the 1950's 'duck-and-cover' cold war propaganda and makes it real. The Commies invaded. There was a nuclear war, and the bomb shelter under your back yard saved you.

Boston is an excellent place to set FO4, that way you can satirize the forging of a nation mythology of American history and mix it up with McCarthyism Red Scare as well. Is the new government a part of the secrete communist conspiracy? It all fits rather well with the Fallout themes.

My biggest worry about FO4 is that they will try to shoe-horn multiplayer into it. Fallout is not a multiplayer game. Trying to make it one will just kill it. I don't need Call of Battlefield Duty Fallout.

 

[Dijeangenie]

It would be kind of neat to make them basically random dungeons, generated the first time you open the door. Completely unnecessary for the main plot of the game, but would add hundreds of extra hours of game play.

For those asking for a non-USA Fallout; that is not what Fallout is about. Fallout is strongly about satirising American early cold-war nostalgia. It takes all the 1950's 'duck-and-cover' cold war propaganda and makes it real. The Commies invaded. There was a nuclear war, and the bomb shelter under your back yard saved you.

Boston is an excellent place to set FO4, that way you can satirize the forging of a nation mythology of American history and mix it up with McCarthyism Red Scare as well. Is the new government a part of the secrete communist conspiracy? It all fits rather well with the Fallout themes.

My biggest worry about FO4 is that they will try to shoe-horn multiplayer into it. Fallout is not a multiplayer game. Trying to make it one will just kill it. I don't need Call of Battlefield Duty Fallout.

There was similar propaganda all over Europe too, esp in the UK.

 

[shortylickens]

They really need to make Fallout from the ground up finally. No more of this garbage that feels like a publisher threw a mod team a copy of a Oblivion and a few million dollars. I'm still betting on Skyrim with guns though.

I have played all the Elder Scrolls and all the Fallouts through to the end. Fallout 3 does not feel like Oblivion with guns. It feels like a 3D Fallout.


Conversely, I prefer Baldurs Gate to Neverwinter Nights specifically because the move to 3D did absolutely nothing to help gameplay, and hindered it in some ways.

As for the ground up issue: Engines cost a lot more to develop than you may realize. Do you really wanna pay 100 bucks for the next Fallout game? Do you honestly think 10 million fans will? Probably not.

Also the Quake 3 engine was used in a buttload of games and the Unreal engine was used in a crapton of games, so your argument is kind of mushy, like a baby diaper. (I have no idea what the mush of adult diapers feels like.)

 

[shortylickens]

FO:NV and the DLCs were awesome, except the Lonesome Road DLC and perhaps Dead Money because of its annoying game mechanics. Please, please, please do not make a craptastic storyline and linear path game like Lonesome Road again.

I like Dead Money the least. Losing your gear isnt a huge problem, it forces improvisation, like when you first started the game and had to really think about your limited purchasing power.

But the instant death mechanics were horribly annoying. Shame because the vending machine codes needed to get the good items are found at the Sierra Madre. (You can access that one vending machine with limited items by using lockpick 100 at the abandoned bunker, BEFORE walking towards the radio).

 

[Rakewell]

For those asking for a non-USA Fallout; that is not what Fallout is about. Fallout is strongly about satirising American early cold-war nostalgia. It takes all the 1950's 'duck-and-cover' cold war propaganda and makes it real. The Commies invaded. There was a nuclear war, and the bomb shelter under your back yard saved you.

Boston is an excellent place to set FO4, that way you can satirize the forging of a nation mythology of American history and mix it up with McCarthyism Red Scare as well. Is the new government a part of the secrete communist conspiracy? It all fits rather well with the Fallout themes.

Exactly.

There is great humor in the nuclear-devastated alternate universe "Pax Americana" of the 50s that wouldn't translate well to any other location in the world.

And Boston would work brilliantly, because of everything that Smogzinn wrote above, and because there aren't many tall buildings in the city, especially any that were built pre-1960. (The only one is the Prudential center, which was constructed in the mid-60s.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudential_Tower

And even if they wanted to keep the Prudential center in the game, it's visible almost anywhere in the city. (I lived there years ago.) It would be a great game mechanic to see the Pru wherever you are in the game, as it is in real life.

Plus, all the historic sites? Faneuil Hall, little Italy, MIT, Harvard, Somerville, Porter Square... I think it would be more interesting the DC, IMHO.

 

[Mopetar]

Hard to get majorly excited over it. Fallout 3 wasn't a terrible game - but it was far more a Bethesda game then a Fallout game. They just didn't get the setting. New Vegas was so much better then FO3, in terms of lore, mechanics, characterizations...everything, really... that I'll likely never play FO3 again.

The one aspect that I liked about FO3 more than NV was the exploration. FO3 was a dangerous wasteland with scattered small populations living amongst the wreckage. NV on the other hand always felt as though you were one step away from civilization, from a nice town that's rebuilt, or a big city. NV is more similar to the originals in the sense that it's post-post-apocolyptic, but the more post-apocolyptic world of FO3 was charming in its own way.

FO:NV and the DLCs were awesome, except the Lonesome Road DLC and perhaps Dead Money because of its annoying game mechanics. Please, please, please do not make a craptastic storyline and linear path game like Lonesome Road again.

I actually liked both of those DLCs. Sometime's it's good to have a more linear story as it allows you to accomplish things that you can't with a more open-ended environment. The only problem with Dead Money was that the game engine wasn't really designed to pull off a lot of what Dead Money was trying to do. Otherwise the environment was quite enjoyable and I found the NPCs that were involved to be well-written and interesting. I also liked how your interactions with them could change how the story played out. Lonesome Road just seemed to suffer most from trying to make a worthwhile narrative out of everything that had happened, and it ended up with one that felt too forced. The pacing could have been better as well, but the environment was something that I wish FO:NV had more of in the original game.

They need to stop using just America as the only country in the world.

It's boring.

Why do you say that? There are a lot of great locations that could be used for future Fallout games. Chicago would definitely be an interesting one as that city has a lot of its own rich history. Seattle and the upper Northwest would be another interesting location and could even bring parts of Canada into the mix. Florida might be interesting as well as you could have some interesting (think Point Lookout) areas there as well.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

You know, that's exactly what I disliked most about FO3 - the exploration. It felt far more like a post-apocalyptic themed amusement park then a post-apocalyptic world. Everything was packed way too tightly. Plus, the apocalypse was still way too fresh - after 200+ years, signs of civilization as it were should be all over. Ruin stripped, new settlements established.

I don't understand why they didn't just set it at the same time as Fallout 1.

 

[motsm]

I have played all the Elder Scrolls and all the Fallouts through to the end. Fallout 3 does not feel like Oblivion with guns. It feels like a 3D Fallout.


Conversely, I prefer Baldurs Gate to Neverwinter Nights specifically because the move to 3D did absolutely nothing to help gameplay, and hindered it in some ways.

As for the ground up issue: Engines cost a lot more to develop than you may realize. Do you really wanna pay 100 bucks for the next Fallout game? Do you honestly think 10 million fans will? Probably not.

Also the Quake 3 engine was used in a buttload of games and the Unreal engine was used in a crapton of games, so your argument is kind of mushy, like a baby diaper. (I have no idea what the mush of adult diapers feels like.)

It's not so much about a new engine, as I realize plenty of studios have used established engines to create great games. My problem is that Fallout 3 used far too many features and assets from Oblivion. I don't have a single problem with a studio that can properly leverage a game engine for their own purposes to make something unique, or even use the engine play to it's known strengths and make a very similar game. Bethesda showed me that they either don't have the talent, or were just too lazy to do either of those things. So we ended up with an clunky shooter that leaves a more than nagging feeling that your playing a very complex mod that tried to shove a square peg in a round hole, but got stuck half way.

I do agree with NWN though, I'd have rather it been on IE, or a new version of it.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Was pokin' around online today, and came upon this little tidbit...

http://compactiongames.about.com/b/2013/01/28/fallout-series-fallout-4-announcement-coming-soon.htm



Anybody have any predictions about venue for the game? Boston mebbe?

My son and I were just wondering last night when the next one would hit. We were both too lazy to do a search though. So thanks. As to locale, they can just set it in present day Detroit. I keed.

 

[waggy]

You know, that's exactly what I disliked most about FO3 - the exploration. It felt far more like a post-apocalyptic themed amusement park then a post-apocalyptic world. Everything was packed way too tightly. Plus, the apocalypse was still way too fresh - after 200+ years, signs of civilization as it were should be all over. Ruin stripped, new settlements established.

I don't understand why they didn't just set it at the same time as Fallout 1.

my favorite part was the exploration. looking around poking into caves/buildings is a lot of fun.

questing is secondary. its the same with games like skyrim its about exploration and finding hidden neat stuff.

 

[BoberFett]

Paris could make for some amazing post-apocolyptic exploration. So many landmarks.

Edit: Of course others do make good points about the 50s nuclear propaganda in the US being a large part of the atmosphere. Vault Boy alone is a very American style of marketing that you wouldn't have seen elsewhere. Nuka-cola, the various gadgets, they're heavy in 50s Americana style.

 

[Rakewell]

 

[Mopetar]

You know, that's exactly what I disliked most about FO3 - the exploration. It felt far more like a post-apocalyptic themed amusement park then a post-apocalyptic world. Everything was packed way too tightly.

I didn't think it was packed that tightly, especially compared to NV, which felt a lot more crowded, if only because you really couldn't go terribly far without running into some kind of town. FO:3 felt largely devoid of civilization, and therefor a little more dangerous. Sure there were small settlements of people, but they were just groups of people trying to survive moreso than actually rebuild.

Plus, the apocalypse was still way too fresh - after 200+ years, signs of civilization as it were should be all over. Ruin stripped, new settlements established.

Yeah, that's what Fallout has historically been about and FO:3 was a strong departure from that. However it does create an interesting contrast between it and the earlier games in the series to show what it's like when civilization doesn't reestablish itself. It's also somewhat hinted at during the game that the purpose of the main quest line is to make it easier for that to occur, as previously the capital wasteland really couldn't support life all that well.

 

[Dahak]

now my memory may be fuzzy, but if they do boston it might work out well for a brotherhood faction, as i recall the was a splinter group that arrived in that area, hints where in fo3 i believe and suggested in fallout 2 as well

again this is just from my fuzzy memory

 

[sandorski]

I didn't think it was packed that tightly, especially compared to NV, which felt a lot more crowded, if only because you really couldn't go terribly far without running into some kind of town. FO:3 felt largely devoid of civilization, and therefor a little more dangerous. Sure there were small settlements of people, but they were just groups of people trying to survive moreso than actually rebuild.




Yeah, that's what Fallout has historically been about and FO:3 was a strong departure from that. However it does create an interesting contrast between it and the earlier games in the series to show what it's like when civilization doesn't reestablish itself. It's also somewhat hinted at during the game that the purpose of the main quest line is to make it easier for that to occur, as previously the capital wasteland really couldn't support life all that well.

Indeed. Not always a town, but something of note. When starting a New Game, you can't seem to go 3-5 minutes before the game announces the discovery of something.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I love the Fallout games but always find it amusing that after 200 years people still live in houses with holes in the roofs/ceiling and rubbish strewn about. Clearly people in the future are lazy and have no interest in self-preservation. I can just imagine their thought process

"Hey, is that pile of crap in the corner from 200 years ago? I could probably bury that outside and it would only take half a day to clean the house....but...no...no way. I'd rather just sit in 200 year old junk instead. Wet moldy rusted metal cans sure are safe around my kids, and I like the damn hole in the roof."

 

[Rakewell]

I love the Fallout games but always find it amusing that after 200 years people still live in houses with holes in the roofs/ceiling and rubbish strewn about. Clearly people in the future are lazy and have no interest in self-preservation. I can just imagine their thought process

"Hey, is that pile of crap in the corner from 200 years ago? I could probably bury that outside and it would only take half a day to clean the house....but...no...no way. I'd rather just sit in 200 year old junk instead. Wet moldy rusted metal cans sure are safe around my kids, and I like the damn hole in the roof."

It's not just the future

You should visit NYC

 

[Dijeangenie]

I love the Fallout games but always find it amusing that after 200 years people still live in houses with holes in the roofs/ceiling and rubbish strewn about. Clearly people in the future are lazy and have no interest in self-preservation. I can just imagine their thought process

"Hey, is that pile of crap in the corner from 200 years ago? I could probably bury that outside and it would only take half a day to clean the house....but...no...no way. I'd rather just sit in 200 year old junk instead. Wet moldy rusted metal cans sure are safe around my kids, and I like the damn hole in the roof."

I think the idea is that the population has been reduced by about 90% and then people went from building to building ransacking the place and leaving a mess which has then not been cleared up because nobody lives there!

I agree that it makes no sense for a place where someone is living though.

One of the small things which annoys me is that there are small amounts loot all over the place, realistically there should be buildings that have been picked clean by 'prospectors' and other buildings/caves etc which havent been discovered so have lots of loot.

 

[Bateluer]

I love the Fallout games but always find it amusing that after 200 years people still live in houses with holes in the roofs/ceiling and rubbish strewn about. Clearly people in the future are lazy and have no interest in self-preservation. I can just imagine their thought process

"Hey, is that pile of crap in the corner from 200 years ago? I could probably bury that outside and it would only take half a day to clean the house....but...no...no way. I'd rather just sit in 200 year old junk instead. Wet moldy rusted metal cans sure are safe around my kids, and I like the damn hole in the roof."

This is something that annoyed me a little about Fallout 3 as well. Next to no rebuilding of civilization at all. At least in FO1, 2, and NV, you had the New California Republic and other factions.

I realize they can't rebuild to what existed before the nukes flew because there's no fossil fuels left, but damn, I don't see humanity sitting in a trash heap for centuries either.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I didn't think it was packed that tightly, especially compared to NV, which felt a lot more crowded, if only because you really couldn't go terribly far without running into some kind of town. FO:3 felt largely devoid of civilization, and therefor a little more dangerous. Sure there were small settlements of people, but they were just groups of people trying to survive moreso than actually rebuild.

Perhaps density isn't the correct word. FO3 felt artificial. There was a fair amount of stuff in a tight area in New Vegas - but Vegas gave a good reason for that density. The people you ran into were there because of Vegas and Hoover Dam.

By comparison, FO3 had small pockets of people - many of whom lacked to have a way to grow food, or access fresh water, or really to have any reason to stay there. There are still ruins that aren't lived in, nor have they been cleared out. Open vaults filled with relics which no one has touched in 200 years.

The entire game world was designed around giving players things to do - with no thought at all to internal consistency or believability. Wandering around a post-apocalyptic theme park, versus a world. None of the previous titles had felt that way - places had a reason to exist outside of the player.

Yeah, that's what Fallout has historically been about and FO:3 was a strong departure from that. However it does create an interesting contrast between it and the earlier games in the series to show what it's like when civilization doesn't reestablish itself. It's also somewhat hinted at during the game that the purpose of the main quest line is to make it easier for that to occur, as previously the capital wasteland really couldn't support life all that well.

Had they gone all the way on that route, I might've been more into it. They didn't really do too much with that though. For all the talk of the importance of water, you'd have 1 beggar outside of every town who seemed to actually be inconvenienced by thirst. Nobody else seemed to mind that much. They just hung out in their little walled, farmless, waterless cities without a care in the world. Waiting for a player to show up to send on some errand or another.

 

[JujuFish]

This is one of the few games I'd be willing to preorder if and when it's announced.

 

[Mopetar]

Perhaps density isn't the correct word. FO3 felt artificial. There was a fair amount of stuff in a tight area in New Vegas - but Vegas gave a good reason for that density. The people you ran into were there because of Vegas and Hoover Dam.

I can see what you're saying, and I suppose if placed under a careful lens, not everything in these games makes logical sense from a real life perspective.

By comparison, FO3 had small pockets of people - many of whom lacked to have a way to grow food, or access fresh water, or really to have any reason to stay there. There are still ruins that aren't lived in, nor have they been cleared out. Open vaults filled with relics which no one has touched in 200 years.

There weren't that many places in FO3. The major civilization centers were Megaton, Rivet City, Tenpenny Tower, and the Underworld; and calling some of them major is stretching things a bit.

It also seems like there wasn't much of a crop industry and that people mostly farmed Brahmin, which I suppose grazed on any small plant matter. Tenpenny and the people who occupy his apartments are supposedly rich enough that they can import what they need. There are also a few interesting cases, such as the kids in Little Lamplight eating cave fungus that is revealed to grow best when it has dead people to fertilize it, and then there's the small settlement populated by cannibals.

The entire game world was designed around giving players things to do - with no thought at all to internal consistency or believability. Wandering around a post-apocalyptic theme park, versus a world. None of the previous titles had felt that way - places had a reason to exist outside of the player.

There are definitely instances (e.g. putting Harold in the game) of what you're describing, but I wouldn't say it stands as a central point. I don't know what their intent for the game was, but to me it played out in a way to suggest that it was exploring the precursor events to civilization being able to bootstrap things to the point that they can rebuild at a reasonable rate. Prior to the end of the original game, it seems as though the capitol wasteland was too much of a hellhole to support a large population and the trappings of civilization that come with it.

So I think that they may have had an interesting idea, and after they fleshed that out, they just added a lot of things to do that weren't really tied to anything. I think that they also felt as though they had to add a lot of things (e.g. the Brotherhood of Steel) to the game as a nod to the fans. In bringing a new entry to a series that hadn't had a main entry in about a decade, there was probably a lot of pressure to include elements from the previous games, even if they didn't make a whole lot of sense.

Had they gone all the way on that route, I might've been more into it. They didn't really do too much with that though. For all the talk of the importance of water, you'd have 1 beggar outside of every town who seemed to actually be inconvenienced by thirst. Nobody else seemed to mind that much. They just hung out in their little walled, farmless, waterless cities without a care in the world. Waiting for a player to show up to send on some errand or another.

Once again, I have to disagree with some of what you're saying. If you accept that the land is mostly useless for farming and possibly only good for grazing, it's not too hard to realize why people mostly stuck to their towns. Megaton had a water system, so it's reasonable to think that they had a water supply that wasn't completely irradiated. Rivet city, the only other large settlement, had scientists who would later go on to solve the irradiated water problem, so it's not unreasonable to assume that they could solve the problem on a smaller scale, at least enough to keep the settlement going. That they had beggars outside the cities was most likely just to reinforce the notion that good water was scarce.

The land outside of these settlements hadn't been tamed either. It was overrun by wild animals, bandits, and a lot of super mutants. Given that, I really can't blame the average person for not wanting to step outside of what relative (even the settlements weren't all that safe; for example, Big Town seemed to be on the brink of getting wiped out) safety they could find.

Everything would have gone over better if it were a little more well written, but like I said earlier, there was probably a lot of pressure to include elements from previous games that wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense. If the next game is set in Boston, I'm really interested in seeing what Bethesda does with it. In FO3, they introduced the Commonwealth, which was only really touched on in a single quest, but is implied to be a much more civilized area. It's also something that they developed themselves, so it will be interesting to see what they can do if they don't feel constrained.

 

[waggy]

I love the Fallout games but always find it amusing that after 200 years people still live in houses with holes in the roofs/ceiling and rubbish strewn about. Clearly people in the future are lazy and have no interest in self-preservation. I can just imagine their thought process

"Hey, is that pile of crap in the corner from 200 years ago? I could probably bury that outside and it would only take half a day to clean the house....but...no...no way. I'd rather just sit in 200 year old junk instead. Wet moldy rusted metal cans sure are safe around my kids, and I like the damn hole in the roof."

Lol i always thought the same.

 

[Bman123]

I cannot wait for FO4 we are overdue on a new FO game for sure