Fallout 4

Definitely in the mood for the next RPG I play to be Fallout, but I just can't stop worrying that Bethesda will just half-butt it again, as they have done with their last few games. They need to do some seriously major improvements to nearly every aspect of their game design (gameplay, writing, making NPCs and the world not feel like shallow, hollow shells, graphics not looking 10 years old and having a weird roundedness to them, etc). Please don't screw this up Bethesda. You have 10s of millions of dollars and a large team, you should be able to make a really, really good game here.

EDIT: I wonder if they'll have the option for paid mods at release this time, if so then they had damn well better do a good job of the game because if they don't and are taking a cut from people who are being paid by the users to fix a game they already bought then that would just be insulting.
 
Also finally buy Obsidian goddamnit

That wouldn't really help Obsidian, I think they quite like their independence though publishers still screw them over as often as not. Though they definitely can learn a lot from how to design a good game world, NPCs and how to write from them. Should just give them the Fallout IP TBH.
 
Ofc, Bethesda will give the Fallout IP so long as they're asked nicely. Pray that New Orleans will be up for the next Obsidian Fallout.
 
Ugh, I loved New Vegas... seriously my favorite RPG experience of the 21st century.

I really really hope Fallout 4 is good, or if not, that Obsidian gets involved again at some point.
 
I can't wait for the fanboy flamewars between TES vs. Fallout, FO3 vs New Vegas, old school Beth vs. new school Beth, stormcloaks vs. Imperials, lore vs other lore... it's gonna be a hoot.
 
Also finally buy Obsidian goddamnit

They don't need to buy Obsidian, they just need to license the IP to them again. They should just do that with Fallout from now on, Obsidian proved with New Vegas that they know much better than Bethesda how to handle the Fallout world. Now that this is really happening, I find myself not nearly as excited as I expected, because I'm sure it's not going to be as good as New Vegas.

Unless, of course, part of the announcement ends up being that the game is being made by Obsidian, in which case bring on the hype train, but I kind of doubt it.
 
I mean say what you will about the gameplay, that's subjective and I can see arguments for either FO3 or NV being better from a purely gameplay perspective (I still prefer NV but I can understand why some would like FO3 instead). But in terms of the Fallout world and lore, Obsidian's treatment of it blew Bethesda's out of the water and I can't see how anyone who played the original games could even argue against that with a straight face.
 
re: Obsidian v Bethesda:
I'm feeling cautiously optimistic Bethesda can pull it off, plot-wise. Skyrim's Imperial/Stormcloak conflict was far more grey and multifaceted than Obsidian's NCR/Ceasar's Legion conflict. Ceasar's Legion was far too silly for me to take seriously.*
The quest lines in Skyrim were excellent (if a bit too short, perhaps Bethesda needs to include a few more radiant quests integral to the quest line), with far better characterization than the quest lines in New Vegas.
One of two areas, in my opinion, New Vegas did clearly better than Skyrim, was in the treatment of companions - but even those need the substantial footnote of many of the them still being quite buggy and in some cases needing to be played with a game guide open to make sure you visit the proper locations to trigger dialogue.
The second area New Vegas was better than Skyrim -and far better than F3- was in the quality of the expansions, even if some of the enemies suffered badly from HP bloat.



*The football pads as armor made them seem like post-apunkalyptic jocks more than anything else.
 

good characterization

Ehh... not really no. I barely remember any characters from Skyrim and most of the ones I do are only because I interacted with them a LOT and they said the same couple lines of dialogue over and over again. I remember even fewer quests off the top of my head, and while many of them were fine overall I think that New Vegas did a better job.

After (well, I'm still not close to being done) playing The Witcher 3 though I don't think I'll ever be able to touch Skyrim again. TW3 is by no means perfect, but the quests and their structure is more often than not very well done and far better than most quests I've done in other games.
 
Skyrim's Imperial/Stormcloak conflict was far more grey and multifaceted than Obsidian's NCR/Ceasar's Legion conflict.

The sad part is that there is *some* good to the Legion. It is stable and far safer than the NCR - it is mentioned that trade caravans and such can walk openly in its territory without the need for guards, as banditry and such has been eliminated. The Legion's subjects are also apparently rather unmolested and go about their business without much interference. The game itself mostly ignores this, other than a few comments by some NPCs. On the flip side, the NCR is corrupt and overextended, unable to fully provide for and protect its citizens.

Spoiler :
NCR still best
 
The only series of quests in Skyrim that I thought was really solid all the way through was the Dark Brotherhood. The Thieve's Guild was a mess, the Companions was boring, the College was absurd, the Civil War had a lot of potential but ended up being rushed and unsatisfying, the main quest had a few decent parts but ultimately leaned too much on "OMG DRAGONS!" as its only selling point. The DLC did better, I legitimately enjoyed both Dawnguard and Dragonborn, although the main villain in Dragonborn was pretty bleh. Overall it was a solid improvement over Oblivion, but that's not really saying much, and the writing was still far and away the weakest part of the game, just as it has been for all of Bethesda's games since Oblivion. If FO4 follows the recent pattern, I expect it to be fun and have a memorable atmosphere, but very few memorable characters or stories to tell. FO3's writing was probably the worst of any game they've ever released, I actually think the game would have improved by taking out all the dialogue and any pretense towards story and just making it an open world exploration game.
 
It looks too much like Borderlands. And why does every single Fallout game have to take place in the USA ?
 
Looks like everything will be filthy in the game, again.

Which is just the most boring element of these new Fallout games for me. Okay, society as we know it has collapsed, a sparse few survivors now eek out a hardscrabble life, and somehow that means that no one sweeps their floors?

You walk through these active buildings with tons of people living and working in them throughout these games and they are all filled with the same refuse as abandoned buildings. It makes no sense. Did the nuclear winter somehow destroy all the brooms in the world?

Additionally, why are there no bicycles in Fallout? It seems to me that a bicycle would be the ideal means of locomotion, but no one seems to have one.

And why does every single Fallout game have to take place in the USA ?

Because its theme focuses on uniquely American fears regarding nuclear war.
 
Pretty uninspiring trailer IMO. Full skepticism mode: engaged. It's the only way to deal with Bethesda games.
 
Top Bottom