Fallout 4 hinted by Three Dog VA

[leddis3]

Does anyone else think that Fallout 3 would've worked far better as a prequel set around 20 years after the war?

I think Bethesda got the atmosphere right, but for a story set 200 years after (for the sole reason of having the Enclave) it just didn't work.

[Kaffe01]

20 years? Sure I get the hairline fracture in the realism department of using guns, ammo, armor, etc that is 200 years old and still in working condition (or edible for that matter) But setting it 20 years after the bombs fell? Mmmhhhh naaaah...The first game was set 80 years after the bombs fell and if I remember correctly humanity was just crawling out of the ashes at that stage. But then again I am most likely remembering it incorrectly.

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

Fallout 3 is no more flawed than 1 or 2. If we're going to stick with the Star Wars analogy, it's more like fans of the older entries have gone through them so many times than any real flaws the can see are generally ignored, or rationalized away.

[polluxval]

They should use Detroit for the setting as it already looks like a wasteland. The goal would be to get out of the city and into a vault to improve your living conditions.

 

lol to that.

 

I enjoyed all of the Fallout games' date=' regardless of their flaws, I'm over it, I'm not going to be sitting in a Nursing home when I'm 80 wasting time on the internet debating whether Immersive Virtual 3D Cyber-Jacked Fallout 23 fails Fallout 1 lore, get over it people

[/quote']

 

totally agree.

 

Never could get myself to finish the story line' date=' just couldn't get into it like I can with new vegas.

[/quote']

 

I will never understand why people say New Vegas has a good story. Up until you kill Benny, the story is passable; a cliche revenge story. After that, the Courier is just expected to get involved with shit that has nothing to do with them at all. Atleast with FO3, the revenge plot actually stays the entire way through to end game.

 

And then the end game quests are all the fucking same, just with tiny little variations like starting point and who the last person is that you have to potentially kill.

 

finally. someone with some common sense. new vegas story suked balls, the most interesting part was the fact that the courier became a super mega solder when they shooted him/her on the face.

 

Fallout 3 is no more flawed than 1 or 2. If we're going to stick with the Star Wars analogy' date=' it's more like fans of the older entries have gone through them so many times than any real flaws the can see are generally ignored, or rationalized away.

[/quote']

 

100% agree.

 

---------

 

i really dont care much about the history, as long as the wastes are gigantic and we got the same engine as skyrim (also modeable), everything will be just fine.

[radech]

Fallout 3 is no more flawed than 1 or 2. If we're going to stick with the Star Wars analogy' date=' it's more like fans of the older entries have gone through them so many times than any real flaws the can see are generally ignored, or rationalized away.

[/quote']

 

I'd go as far and say that new vegas is no more flawed than fallout 2, both had a silly premise, and the various quest hubs were somewhat disconnected, and were permeated with silly pop-culture references, while fallout 1 had a much darker overall tone and a more coherent story(actually had a story instead of a minor premise to get the ball rolling before you where free to piss around).

So please stop bunching those two games together, they're just as distinct as FO3 and New Vegas

 

as for Fallout 3, well it just doesn't make sense plain and simple. My main gripe is why they decided to even use the fallout franchise, it would have made much more sense in a home-brew borderlands like setting, instead of trying to shoe-horn in knights(brotherhood of steel) and orcs(super mutants), while completely disregarding the previous lore surrounding the two factions. They instead delivered the standard bethesda fare(which at that point sadly had devolved into oblivion) instead of creatively using the setting - so this rage is more like if someone made a Star Wars sequel and turned it into an Adam Sandler vehicle(analogies are hard here though as there is absolutely nothing original in the star wars franchise, it's just a medieval fairy tale with lightsabers, much like Fallout 3 is an medieval fantasy "rpg" with guns )

 

oh and don't get me started on the enclave, they where ridiculous in FO2, and no-one ever managed to make that faction make sense.

 

PS. regardless of how little fallout 2 makes sense, New Reno is still my 2nd favourite RPG hub

 

TLDR: The Fallout franchise has been going downhill ever since the release of FO2(or more technically the patch to FO1 that removed the water-chip quest timer), please just let it die already Bethesda

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

I'd say FO3 did something good with the Enclave. People make it a point to prattle on about how Fallout has grey morality; even in Fallout 1, the Master's plan was for the benefit of humanity, even if it meant killing off or sterilizing those who didn't want to, or couldn't, become Super Mutants.

 

In Fallout 2, the Enclave was just flat out genocidal maniacs, wanting to kill everybody so they could start over. In Fallout 3, the Enclave is a fractured and conflicted because of the plan to poison the water supply, something that Autumn is completely against. To the point where he was fully willing to start a coup and kill Eden to ensure it doesn't happen.

 

As for the Brotherhood, the fact that they're expanding and have thrown away some of their core beliefs makes sense to me in the context of Fallout Tactics, which was a game based around, you know, the Brotherhood expanding and throwing out some of their core beliefs. Having Lyons and his group so far away from the core BoS just feels like another case of exile, like the Midwest Chapter.

 

And even though I do have issues with the Super Mutants, it still makes some sense to me. I mean, having the FEV in exactly one place in the US before the war doesn't make the maximum amount of sense, though why they would use a Vault doesn't make as much sense. It should have been another government facility, rather than a Vault.

 

What I HAVEN'T heard people complain about is the presence of Deathclaws on both coasts. It simple makes sense for the FEV, a military project, to be present in multiple locations, just like the Deathclaws, another military project.

[leddis3]

I'd say FO3 did something good with the Enclave. People make it a point to prattle on about how Fallout has grey morality; even in Fallout 1' date=' the Master's plan was for the benefit of humanity, even if it meant killing off or sterilizing those who didn't want to, or couldn't, become Super Mutants.

 

In Fallout 2, the Enclave was just flat out genocidal maniacs, wanting to kill everybody so they could start over. In Fallout 3, the Enclave is a fractured and conflicted because of the plan to poison the water supply, something that Autumn is completely against. To the point where he was fully willing to start a coup and kill Eden to ensure it doesn't happen.[/quote']

 

Which is a good idea in principle, but Bethesda completely messed it up.

Colonel Autumn is psychotic. Despite having reasonable goals (which are in fact exactly the same as the Brotherhood's; free distribution of clean water for political gain) he stomps around shooting scientists and torturing people and acting like a maniac.

 

The worst part is when he captures you, if you give him the code for the purifier HE KILLS YOU even though he has no reason to other than to but thou must you into working with the Brotherhood.

 

In any case Broken Steel then forgets any ambiguity whatsoever and just turns the story into an Enclave shooting spree.

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

I'll agree that they should have kept Autumn in line with his character when it came to killing your character for giving him the actual code. BUT, I'd say that him killing a scientist to spur James to start the purifier in the first place wasn't a strike against his character. Rather, it showed that he was willing to do whatever it took to ensure that his goal, pure water for the masses, became a reality. If he weren't so severe in that case, he would almost seem ineffective in his role; mind you, being able to talk your way into peace, end game in New Vegas didn't happen, and the most you could do, talking wise to get things done in FO1 was getting the Master to blow himself up.

 

But yes, his just killing you when you have him the code shat all over that. it was the single most moronic thing they did in that game, and seriously ignored any building up of his character that they knew they did. I'm surprised there isn't a mod (that I know of) that doesn't fix that.

 

Broken Steel was great for letting you play beyond the purifier, but in the end, it wasn't great for the plot. Having Raven Rock automatically blown up even if you did what Eden wants basically makes you poisoning the water worthless since it does kill you while you get no big reward. Not to mention why they didn't blow up the Pentagon as soon as possible, and making the crawler a valid target for their orbital missiles FROM the crawler itself...

[theskid]

Fallout 3 is no more flawed than 1 or 2. If we're going to stick with the Star Wars analogy' date=' it's more like fans of the older entries have gone through them so many times than any real flaws the can see are generally ignored, or rationalized away.

[/quote']

 

Every game has flaws, but what I'm picking up on is the lack of consistency between games, just as there is a lack of consistency between the the SW trilogies. Things that just stick out and make you go , jesus christ wtf man, what were those idiots thinking! It's the same vibe that made my wife yell at the movie screen in a theater at one of the harry potter movies because it deviated too much from the books. Stuff that rubs a fan the wrong way, and therefore lessens the enjoyment of an otherwise well produced and entertaining game/movie/book what have you. For some folk this will ruin the entire product, and I admit it came pretty close for me when I first started playing it. I still enjoy passing time in the FO3 wasteland, if I don't let myself get worked up by lore fails and lack of choice in questing. The game just never grabbed me in the same way the original fallouts or even New Vegas did, which for me feels like the real sequel.

 

Edit: In any case we're getting slightly offtopic, which is FO4 or ... apparently Bethesda has purchased and/or renewed rights for using Fallout as the title of a tv show, ap http://www.falloutwiki.com/Blog:News/Bethesda_registers_Fallout_trademark_for_a_television_program

 

Maybe we gonna get something prime time

[Remy]

FO3 was the only game i really enjoyed amongst bethesdas games, that was some true apocalyptic atmosphere..despite its flaws and the horrible animations i loved it...new vegas didnt even come close to that (i know i know it was done by obsidian), although the story might have been interesting...i missed the true feeling of misery and despair from FO3.

 

 

Mixed feelings about this. They've already said FO4 will be done "By Bethesda" which is' date=' really, already enough to make me cry.

[/quote']

 

Yeah if its true, knowing that company...its gonna be a total overhyped crap.

[leddis3]

Yes that's one thing F3 has over New Vegas, the atmosphere.

NV is too... civilised. Aparently Chris Avellone thinks the same way, stating that if Obsidian ever got another Fallout game he'd flat out nuke the NCR and everyone else to start again.

 

Well there's that and I just can't take the Legion seriously. They're a bunch of ignorant cave men in football gear waving sticks around against people with guns and helicopters. Why were they ever a threat again?

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

Because they're organized, using tactics that have been time tested and proven and unified on one goal. The NCR can't even afford to properly armor their troops because they've stretching themselves so thin so they can't focus on shit.

 

Also, I'm all for nuking the NCR. Seriously, FUCK THEM ever since FO2. Fuck their very concept and basis.

[Remy]

Yes that's one thing F3 has over New Vegas' date=' the atmosphere.

NV is too... civilised. Aparently Chris Avellone thinks the same way, stating that if Obsidian ever got another Fallout game he'd flat out nuke the NCR and everyone else to start again.

 

Well there's that and I just can't take the Legion seriously. They're a bunch of ignorant cave men in football gear waving sticks around against people with guns and helicopters. Why were they ever a threat again?

[/quote']

 

Yep exactly...too civilized.

 

Logicaly people would make comunities to survive, but NV was kinda too shiny for an apocalyptic setting...too many casinos and other crap.

I never finished NV, although i enjoyed the story, i missed the good ol DC ruins where i was sneaking arround, always nervous if some Mutant wont jump me.

I agree, with nuking ncr...and putting back some serious fight for survival...when i say "mutant" its not there just so you can shoot it..when that thing is gonna jump you, you will poop yourself!

That was the thing i missed in FO3 and NV too...moment of surprise...a good old light and shadow play...you never know whats gonna jump you from that shadow...like in stalker where you had to use battery...god those were some moments.

Oh and ofcourse hardcore mode!...so water and food isnt there for the lulz...NV had it, but it still didnt felt that right.

 

I dont know...i wish FO4 would have all of this...but i have serious doubts it will come even close.

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

Hardcore mode is a joke. Unless you're playing it with the difficulty set all the way down, or using the console to give you so much HP that you can go through the whole of Dead Wind Cavern using bare fists with an unarmed rating of 1 while wearing no armor, then you're eating and drinking enough to never be bothered with having to eat or drink. I'm also pretty sure you don't get any more tired if you fast travel; at least, it didn't seem to go up when I did hardcore.

 

If they want to do proper hardcore, you should be restricted to one save file, console should be disabled, food and water should be ultra rare along with any healing items, dying will delete that save, unarmed will do limb damage to you over time, the only way to heal limbs is to see a doctor, loot should be rare as Hell, especially ammo and you should level several times slower than normal.

[theskid]

Sawyer's personal mod for the game actually does a lot of that. You can get it at his blog, he reduces the level cap, takes away all the starter packs, approximately halves the number of hit points and so on and so on. You can get it at his blog if you want to give it a spin, I never play without it anymore. It's relatively stable with the sexout mods too, so no issues there. You do need all the dlc's though.

 

http://twofoldsilence.diogenes-lamp.info/

[Remy]

While i like to be restricted, plenty of developers forget to make hardcore mode fun..i think in this regard, a hardcore mode should be highly immersive...and im not talking only about stat changes, where you screen gets spammed by messages of your status.

 

Recently i been watching the new Tomb Raider vids and that sense of survival looks really awesome (although the preview i read somewhere wasnt very positive)every wound seems to affect her movement or vision, the animations changes depending on the wounds...that would be something.

Before anyone jumps to the "nooo fallout is no Tomb Raider!!!11", its just an idea, im not saying to copy that game.

Such apocalyptic world basicaly asks for a high immersion and your characters reaction to the enviroments...im still dreaming about such game

[GECK.O]

The "ancient" gamers who played Fallout 1 and 2 will prefer Fallout NV over Fallout 3.

 

First impression is strong. So I can understand if new gamers, who play Fallout 3 as their first Fallout game, develop a very strong impression on it. As for them, Fallout 1, 2 and NV setting in wild wild west are not so "right".

 

For me....I prefer Fallout Tactics!

[Remy]

Well i cant say im a new gamer as i been gaming for nearly 15 years...but the times of fallout1/2 are long over.

 

There are technologies now availiable, that werent in that time, to make something incredible, problem is, everyone wants to play it safe..and thats why we get every year the same bunch of games /gamestyles just a bit upgraded.

Developers are racing, to make the most realistically looking games, packed with flashy effect and other crap, because people judge games only by looks nowadays.

Then you start the game and realize, without its shiny graphics its a piece of crap.

 

Tbh im really tired of this approach because it feels as if im playing the same game over and over just with different look.

[leddis3]

Those who like Fallout 3: Dirty console gaming peasants.

Those who like F1/F2/NV: Glorious PC gaming master race.

 

I kid of course, personally I like all things Fallout except.. that one game we must never speak of.

Though anyone who argues that Fallout had to be first person perspective to be "modern" and "immersive" deserves a smack, the only reason F3 is so is because that's the type of game Bethesda are familiar with and good at doing.

[KainsChylde]

The creators of Fallout 1 and 2 state many times that those games are the way they are due to technology limitations. If they had access to today's technology whats to say those games wouldn't look remarkably similar to 3 and NV?

 

I love the older games. Fallout 2 was the first PC game I ever played. And honestly, to me, Fallout 3 and New Vegas both feel like half a Fallout game. A merger of the two would, in my opinion, be a true Fallout successor (and I'm not talking A Tale Of Two Wastelands).

[leddis3]

The creators of Fallout 1 and 2 state many times that those games are the way they are due to technology limitations. If they had access to today's technology whats to say those games wouldn't look remarkably similar to 3 and NV?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_II:_Daggerfall

 

That's why I know they wouldn't.

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

Those who like F1/F2/NV: Glorious PC gaming master race.

 

So glorious that the fans are forced to patch to make it work, and in some cases, finish the game. Especially when Obsidian is involved.

 

Oh boy, what a privilege to pay for!

[leddis3]

Those who like F1/F2/NV: Glorious PC gaming master race.

 

So glorious that the fans are forced to patch to make it work' date=' and in some cases, finish the game. Especially when Obsidian is involved.

 

Oh boy, what a privilege to pay for!

[/quote']

 

Heh, the eternal blight of unfinished games hit consoles as much as PCs this gen, I think. Given that all consoles are now expected to be fully online, developers are getting lazier.

Granted consoles don't have unmitigated release disasters like Sword of the Stars II. Yet.

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

I know, the moment hard drives became standard equipment for consoles, I knew it wouldn't be long before release quality would suffer horribly. And sadly, the consoles don't actually have the benefit of fan patching, lest you want to basically have your console banned from online play.

 

I can only wait for the day when the two finally merge, then we can put all of this shit behind us.

 

ON THAT NOTE, I wonder how broken Fallout 4 will be when it's first released. It wouldn't be like Bethesda to actually release a game properly play tested and what have you.

[Daguy]

Well, if it wasn't for for Fallout 3 we would not have New Vegas, and I wouldn't be a Fallout fan.

 

I love the entire series, but it was advertising for Fallout 3 (and my love of Oblivion and Bethesda) that got me into the series. After watching early teasers, and trusting Bethesda, I decided that (much like when I read the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings before the the movies released) I would go back and play the early installments. I liked Fallout 1, loved Fallout 2, and was a bit meh over BoS.

 

Then FO3 came out... and I disliked it. I was disapointed, as I had paid for the collectors edition. Iw as at a dark place at that point in my life, and I foudn the wasteland depressing. Then I came back to it a year later, and loved the hell out of it, and preordered the New Vegas CE.

 

I actually like New Vegas less than Fallout 3 in many ways. The NPCs are fantastic (such as Joshua Graham), the companions brilliant, and its nce to see civilisation starting to come back. But overall, albiet a bit wonky, the FO3 story felt more personal.

 

I actually felt anger at Amata for my second banishment, and a little hurt. My throat tightened as James clawed at the glass. I truly despised Autumn. As my character 'grew' and I got used to the wasteland, I drifted from the hinted romantic vibes between Amata and the PC, and towards the tough soldier that was Sarah Lyons. The world was also superior to explore, as has been noted by a few people.

 

I sort of lost interest half-way the first time I was hunting Benny. More than one of my characters has never completed event hat first portion of the MQ, questioning the wisdom (as a simple Courier) of hunting down a man who damn near killed them once. I didn't care about the future of New Vegas. I never really saw the point of leaving Goodsprings after defending it, as it felt like a pretty nice place to settle down. When I got to the 'choose your side' part I really had no opinion. The Legion are badly presented. The NCR are 'insert standard corrupted ideal here'. House is a prick. And prior to the Word of God update (and the fact it was needed speaks volumes) that Yes Man wasn't going to go all Skynet on our asses I didn't trust him.

 

Fallout 3 also gave us the epic Mothership Zeta Crew mod. That mod alone makes the game one of the best 'alien/space' sci-fi games to ever see the light of day.

 

Just my opinions of course.

 

Sadly, for some reason, I still have never gotten quite into Fallout as the Elder Scrolls, but I do love it. I'm very much ready for Fallout 4.