Fallout 4

Haha, ooooh dang! This was beautiful. I'd be rather extremely angry if I was highly anticipating this game though. I mean I'm looking forward to it, but eh, I have other fish to fry and games to play.

I'm sure they'll announce Fallout 4 soon anyway, and usually Bethesda is nice enough to not announce their games many years before they come out, so when it's announced, it should come relatively fast.

Edit: That being said, I do think Bethesda was a rather irresponsible in this matter. They will probably say they just don't comment on random internet websites, but truth is they got a lot of hype and publicity with this and didn't give a crap about the massive disappointment they could have easily have prevented.
 
grandad1982 said:
So this site is arguing that survivor2299 is a hoax.

I saw some were else that a Bethesda employee once said in reference to F4 that the Mohave was really fun to explore wasn't it.

If the site is a hoax and Boston is off then I really hope that its not the Mohave again as I didn't think it was very fun to explore and being back there would suck.
Click to expand...

I think some people number FO:NV as "FO#4", but technically its a stand-alone version of FO3.
 
I like to think of New Vegas as Fallout 3.5. It's what Fallout 3 should have been all along. My hope is that it being so good will jump start Bethesda's creativity in an attempt to match it.

Actually my really REAL hope is that they'll just pass the license off to Obsidian again but that's pretty unlikely so...
 
In somewhat related note - if anyone hasn't owned yet Fallout 1,2 or Tactics - there is possibility to get them for free on Gog.com.
I think it has something to do with transfer of game ownership / selling rights from Interplay (it still lives) to Bethesda which will occur after the end of this year.
 
FNV was 10 times the game Fallout 3 was. But I'm mildly looking forward to this game.

Seeing as this was discussed on page 1, I'll add my 2 cents. To me, a role playing game means you play a role duh, but more than that there is a story, and more importantly (otherwise it's an adventure game) you affect the world around you. Fallout 3 you had almost no affect on the world, where as FNV you could affect the fate of many factions and was given an "ending" for each of these factions. FNV is a true role playing game, and the ultimate role playing game. Fallout 3 is just a sandbox game (good, but not great). You were railroaded into a specific story, and given few options. I had no desire to help the Brotherhood of Steel. What if I want to take power for msyelf? Where is that option? What if I want the Enclave to win? Simply put, Fallout 3 is not a true role playing game.

I find Brotherhood of Steel's morality highly questionable and I don't like working for them. Which is the main failing of Fallout: Tactics and Fallout 3. Yes I worked for them in Fallout 2 if only for the sweet armor. I had ulterior motives to work for them. My true motives lie not with their flawed philosophy, but with my own tribal village.
 
Disgustipated said:
FNV was 10 times the game Fallout 3 was. But I'm mildly looking forward to this game.

Seeing as this was discussed on page 1, I'll add my 2 cents. To me, a role playing game means you play a role duh, but more than that there is a story, and more importantly (otherwise it's an adventure game) you affect the world around you. Fallout 3 you had almost no affect on the world, where as FNV you could affect the fate of many factions and was given an "ending" for each of these factions. FNV is a true role playing game, and the ultimate role playing game. Fallout 3 is just a sandbox game (good, but not great). You were railroaded into a specific story, and given few options. I had no desire to help the Brotherhood of Steel. What if I want to take power for msyelf? Where is that option? What if I want the Enclave to win? Simply put, Fallout 3 is not a true role playing game.

I find Brotherhood of Steel's morality highly questionable and I don't like working for them. Which is the main failing of Fallout: Tactics and Fallout 3. Yes I worked for them in Fallout 2 if only for the sweet armor. I had ulterior motives to work for them. My true motives lie not with their flawed philosophy, but with my own tribal village.
Click to expand...

I haven't played Fallout 3 in years, but I distinctly remember being given the choice to be loyal to the Enclave. It's not as memorable as Fallout: New Vegas, but the choice was there. I think storyline-wise, NV was better than Fallout 3 based on how it was structured, but the actual plot and atmosphere was significantly better in Fallout 3. Ideally, I'd like to see the two merged in Fallout 4 -- More choices, more immersion, and more factions.
 
Disgustipated said:
Simply put, Fallout 3 is not a true role playing game.
Click to expand...

lol. No. Worst kinds of statements ever. Also, what Synsensa said. Anyway, the choices in FNW were just more obvious because of the big flashy factions. They were hard to miss. Lots of the results of your actions were simply shown as a powerpoint slideshow at the end anyway. I loved that time it told me about this NPC in the slideshow and how his life went after the game, "Sadly, Mr. Bob didn't fulfill his goals" and I was like "who is even this guy, I've never met him".
 
I honestly don't clearly remember any choice in Fallout 3. Where's the option to take over the Brotherhood of Steel yourself? What about siding with the Enclave? I'm not saying rpg's should have the option to side with the bad guys (Bioware's games usually don't- including Dragon Age: Origins), but at least DA:O had several different endings. I do seem to recall Fallout 3 gave you 2 choices, but iirc, the outcomes were pretty similar, and there wasn't much difference in the choices.

You can argue that F3 had more of an apocalyptic environment. But seriously, Washington monument still standing? Capitol building not a pile of rubble? I'm not buying it. The entire city should be rubble. Yeah FNV had a cheesy plot device to show the lack of destruction, but at least they explained it. FNV was more of a western (like Western movie), but I like westerns, so maybe that's why I preferred it.

But you know I'm right. Fallout 3 is more like Fallout: Tactics (which I did enjoy, but not for rpg reasons) than Fallout 2. FNV is closer to Fallout 2 than Fallout 3 is.

But I think there are 2 types of rpg'rs around. Those who preferred Bioware/Black Isle games, and those who preferred Bethesda games. I'm in the former. I like lots of dialogue (like in Planescape: Torment). I think I read somewhere that Fallout New Vegas had the most amount of spoken dialogue in any rpg (single player rpg I'd imagine, since I'm sure the Old Republic has more).

edit: I also forgot to mention that Fallout New Vegas was based off of Van Buren, and because of that, in my opinion it is the true successor to Fallout 2. Not Fallout 3.
 
But then what am I? I love the Elder Scrolls, I love Fallout, and I love KOTOR. Wat do?
 
I love them all. My advice. Play them all.
 
Despite games like Morrorwind having a larger game worlds than all Bioware/Black Isle games, I could never get much replayability out of it. I like the game, just not as much as Bioware/Black Isle games. Oblivion I thought was horrible, and I have yet to finish it. Skyrim was better because they fixed the character leveling system so I didn't have to worry about micromanaging my skills so much. I guess I'm saying I prefer story over game world size (although ideally I'd like to have both).
 
if it's another shooter game with rpg elements, i don't care anymore. i'm still waiting for brotherhood of steel 2 (not that xbox game)
 
I dunno, I've always preferred JRPGs to western ones. I think it's because I've always enjoyed the more colorful aesthetic of JRPGs, and the plots tend to be far superior.

So I'm waiting for FF15 and KH3 far more than I am for Fallout 4, to be honest.
 
Considering how much Fallout 3 diverged away from(or in some cases ignored) the plot of the original Fallout 1 and 2, I don't have high hopes for Fallout 4.

Personally, I would rather see a remake of Fallout 3 (Van Buren) instead.
 
BC1871 said:
Considering how much Fallout 3 diverged away from(or in some cases ignored) the plot of the original Fallout 1 and 2, I don't have high hopes for Fallout 4.

Personally, I would rather see a remake of Fallout 3 (Van Buren) instead.
Click to expand...

1 and 2 were made by a California-Based company, 3 by a Maryland-based company. also, 3 and the first 2 are so far away from each other the storylines are completely separate.

The most jarring examples are of course the Brotherhood of Steel being retooled into the Good Guys (TM) and the presence of Harold.
 
Hmm... Guess I'm the type of person who prefers bethesda's style. More so because it is so impossibly hard for any story to impress me, so the bioware kind of thing I'll find terrible or in rare cases boring at best. At least with bethesda I can choose to walk away from a sucky story, and I guess I'm alone in this but the stuff that bethsda does subtle (which in my people don't notice as they focus too much on what they don't do subtly) I think they do much better, but much of this is with worldbuilding and immersion rather than story. Plus I like their worldbuilding more.

Though I do wonder why they butchered a bit of established fallout lore... I do see how new Vegas is the superior game in several ways anyhow. Sadly, I never could really get into fallout. Maybe it as the setting.
 
cybrxkhan said:
Hmm... Guess I'm the type of person who prefers bethesda's style. More so because it is so impossibly hard for any story to impress me, so the bioware kind of thing I'll find terrible or in rare cases boring at best. At least with bethesda I can choose to walk away from a sucky story, and I guess I'm alone in this but the stuff that bethsda does subtle (which in my people don't notice as they focus too much on what they don't do subtly) I think they do much better, but much of this is with worldbuilding and immersion rather than story. Plus I like their worldbuilding more.

Though I do wonder why they butchered a bit of established fallout lore... I do see how new Vegas is the superior game in several ways anyhow. Sadly, I never could really get into fallout. Maybe it as the setting.
Click to expand...
See, people always point to that as being in Fallout 3's favor... but I think New Vegas had superior worldbuilding, in addition to everything else. Fallout 3 is a bunch of isolated locations connected by those god-awful metro stations. The Mojave Wasteland is cohesive, and I loved every inch of it.

I dunno. I wasn't crazy about Fallout 3, and I loved New Vegas. I honestly can't think of anything I preferred about 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blake00
Video: "Tiberian Sun - The Best Post-Apocalyptic World in Fiction"
Replies
2
Views
763
Ailedhoo
Ailedhoo
Blake00
Bethesda has released new Starfield gameplay trailer & deep dive videos
Replies
0
Views
524
Blake00
Blake00
sTAPler27
I Know This Is Out There, but Civ and Fallout seem like a Natural Fit
Replies
7
Views
633
Ryansinbela
Ryansinbela
T
The AI Horatius League
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
Keler
Keler
C
Memory Allocation Crashes
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
6K
Walter Hawkwood
Walter Hawkwood
Back
Top Bottom