Lovely Rose Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Moved to the Fallout game thread instead of having its own post even thou ones about the game and this is about rumors of it so more people can see. *shrug* EDIT: actually nevermind not gonna bother, wil probably get yelled at on there to. Who knows. What i get for trying to share with the community
ragindude Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 Better be really real for real this time I'm still betting on October 28, 2014 and first previews during summer.
Ark of Truth Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 and another excuse to use the exiting thread http://www.loverslab.com/topic/22917-fallout-4-anyone/
Lovely Rose Posted December 12, 2013 Author Posted December 12, 2013 and another excuse to use the exiting thread http://www.loverslab.com/topic/22917-fallout-4-anyone/ Not rly, sense its about a rumor of it not just about the game talking in general. But whatever. ill just take it down.
bjornk Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 I wonder how many more FO sequels you guys really want to play. Isn't there any other game that you're excited about? (OT) - It's been so long since I first heard about the GB, I forget all about it until I see a banner in someone's signature. BTW, a full-featured tactical FO game with vehicle support could be cool.
Lovely Rose Posted December 12, 2013 Author Posted December 12, 2013 I wonder how many more FO sequels you guys really want to play. Isn't there any other game that you're excited about? (OT) - It's been so long since I first heard about the GB, I forget all about it until I see a banner in someone's signature. BTW, a full-featured tactical FO game with vehicle support could be cool. GB? lol Id play all the games o..o I'm exicted for Dragon age 3, FAllout 4, waiting for new oblivion. not that Elder scrolls online shit. lol
Halstrom Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 I wonder how many more FO sequels you guys really want to play. All of them
Lovely Rose Posted December 12, 2013 Author Posted December 12, 2013 Oh also exicted for Metal Gear Solids new game :3 dat snake in dat tight suit XD
maybenexttime Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 that truth guy is playing police all the time. emily glad admin not make him moderator.he made us nervous.
Lovely Rose Posted December 12, 2013 Author Posted December 12, 2013 that truth guy is playing police all the time. emily glad admin not make him moderator. he made us nervous. Yea he always does it. About to just start ignoring him. its a similar topic, not the same topic, So he should stop acting like it is.
Guest endgameaddiction Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 I wonder how many more FO sequels you guys really want to play. Isn't there any other game that you're excited about? (OT) - It's been so long since I first heard about the GB, I forget all about it until I see a banner in someone's signature. BTW, a full-featured tactical FO game with vehicle support could be cool. After Fallout New Vegas, I would say no more Fallout sequels for me. It's become too.... organized. Too civilized for my taste. I think the best and worst decision they could make, is selling it back to the original creators, Interplay. I honestly think Bethesda could of created their own original version of a Fallout game that isn't so... 50s... The theme was really cool in Fallout 3, not so much for New Vegas If I jump elsewhere, I will probably go to Oblivion and/or back to MMOs. Unsure if I would go to TES Online, but perhaps to FF14 since most of my friends from FF11 shifted over to FF14. I made an oath I'd never return to MMORPGs ever again though. so... tough decisions... Edit: I'll jump into the topic really quick... Another rumor? I'll only believe it when Bethesda/Zenimax releases an official trailer. Until then. Not you or your god will make me believe otherwise. And for someone to spread rumors after this last hype, you know it's all lies.
Lovely Rose Posted December 12, 2013 Author Posted December 12, 2013 yea same, i wasnt to surprised about survivor2299 page being fake. just felt like it was. TO MANY IF's
jonas_opines Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 After Fallout New Vegas, I would say no more Fallout sequels for me. It's become too.... organized. Too civilized for my taste. I think the best and worst decision they could make, is selling it back to the original creators, Interplay. I honestly think Bethesda could of created their own original version of a Fallout game that isn't so... 50s... The theme was really cool in Fallout 3, not so much for New Vegas I think it's a pretty interesting theoretical spin on how human society might go about rebuilding after a nuclear war. In that way, the stories of the first two and then NV appealed more to me than FO3, because it seemed to fit more with how humanity actually behaves -- forming communities and then fighting each other for resources or power -- whereas FO3 seemed more conceptually created -- kid city, teenager city, vampire city, ghoul city, all trying to survive in their own isolated and unconnected fashions. I agree with the 50s things, though, because again other than a conceptual thing that doesn't make any sense at all, and it's not a style I particularly care for. But I've got enough mods running that it's not such an issue, I suppose.
Lovely Rose Posted December 12, 2013 Author Posted December 12, 2013 Well like fallout 3 was 2277? and i think new vegas was 81? Plus new vegas wasnt striked directly by a nuke thanks to Mr.House. I LIKE fallout 3s wasteland style better, mainly cause its like, Chaos, All hope is lost. THan fallout new vegas is like Hopefully, Happy happy joy joy, like nothing happened. Smaller settlements is cool, but like NO one seemed like they knew what happened to the world in new vegas. Fallout 3 felt more shaken up? Like you said "I think it's a pretty interesting theoretical spin on how human society might go about rebuilding after a nuclear war." Thats kinda what i liked to see, but i think the change after just 4 years, was to fast, maybe if fallout new vegas was set in like 2290 i could see the world rebuilding like new vegas did. But idk. my 2 cents.. XD
jonas_opines Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 Well like fallout 3 was 2277? and i think new vegas was 81? Plus new vegas wasnt striked directly by a nuke thanks to Mr.House. I LIKE fallout 3s wasteland style better, mainly cause its like, Chaos, All hope is lost. THan fallout new vegas is like Hopefully, Happy happy joy joy, like nothing happened. Smaller settlements is cool, but like NO one seemed like they knew what happened to the world in new vegas. Fallout 3 felt more shaken up? Like you said "I think it's a pretty interesting theoretical spin on how human society might go about rebuilding after a nuclear war." Thats kinda what i liked to see, but i think the change after just 4 years, was to fast, maybe if fallout new vegas was set in like 2290 i could see the world rebuilding like new vegas did. But idk. my 2 cents.. XD Yeah, 4 years, but here's the thing -- the Vaults were first starting to open, and the people caming out of them initially -- in 2090. The first games themselves, where there's already rebuilding civilization, happen almost a full century before FO3 and NV. There's really no reason, by the Fallout timeline, for the Capital Wasteland to be as shaken up as it is. You could say it got hit harder, of course, and it probably would have been, but that's not really adequate to explain how much worse off it is so long after the war. Except for the obvious reason, of course -- it was designed that way to make a shaken up, post-apocalyptic game with a dreary, toxic environment. While they did rejuvenate the series, which is good, I wonder if they shouldn't have just made their own, new post-apoc game instead so as not to create those problems with the franchise's in-game history.
Lovely Rose Posted December 12, 2013 Author Posted December 12, 2013 Well like fallout 3 was 2277? and i think new vegas was 81? Plus new vegas wasnt striked directly by a nuke thanks to Mr.House. I LIKE fallout 3s wasteland style better, mainly cause its like, Chaos, All hope is lost. THan fallout new vegas is like Hopefully, Happy happy joy joy, like nothing happened. Smaller settlements is cool, but like NO one seemed like they knew what happened to the world in new vegas. Fallout 3 felt more shaken up? Like you said "I think it's a pretty interesting theoretical spin on how human society might go about rebuilding after a nuclear war." Thats kinda what i liked to see, but i think the change after just 4 years, was to fast, maybe if fallout new vegas was set in like 2290 i could see the world rebuilding like new vegas did. But idk. my 2 cents.. XD Yeah, 4 years, but here's the thing -- the Vaults were first starting to open, and the people caming out of them initially -- in 2090. The first games themselves, where there's already rebuilding civilization, happen almost a full century before FO3 and NV. There's really no reason, by the Fallout timeline, for the Capital Wasteland to be as shaken up as it is. You could say it got hit harder, of course, and it probably would have been, but that's not really adequate to explain how much worse off it is so long after the war. Except for the obvious reason, of course -- it was designed that way to make a shaken up, post-apocalyptic game with a dreary, toxic environment. While they did rejuvenate the series, which is good, I wonder if they shouldn't have just made their own, new post-apoc game instead so as not to create those problems with the franchise's in-game history. oh wow didnt know the opened in 2090.. thats like a whole 200 years O..o shit the world should be rebuilt and civilized by now XD
bjornk Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 I might be mistaken but IIRC that annoying bitch in Vault City says that they had lived in the vault for 7 years or something, until they heard the all-clear signal. As I wrote in another thread, FNV is no longer a post-apocalyptic setting, it certainly doesn't feel like the end of human civilization anymore. It's kind of a generic scifi story about a world after a post-nuclear war. BTW, where the hell are the wanamingos!? They were one of the best baddies in Fallout 2.
BoozeJunky Posted December 31, 2013 Posted December 31, 2013 There's really no reason, by the Fallout timeline, for the Capital Wasteland to be as shaken up as it is. You could say it got hit harder, of course, and it probably would have been, but that's not really adequate to explain how much worse off it is so long after the war. I don't think you could really say it got hit harder. The whole damned city is still pretty much intact. New Vegas, by contrast, has nearly been entirely reclaimed by the desert aside from a few abodes and buildings that have been actively repaired/restored/preserved... and it was never even struck by nukes. Which, as you would expect, is as it should be. FO3 really should have been set in the early 2100's. The level of societal decay is exaggerated, while the level of physical decay is absurdly slow. I understand why, from a design perspective, they would want it to be that way. FO3 feels very "alive" for a wasteland, with lots of urban combat scenarios, exploration opportunities, and more of a post-nuclear feel compared to NV's emptiness and "post"-post-nuclear atmosphere. NV definitely had a deeper and more interesting story, better characters, more believable scenarios that used post-civilization civilizations to explore and parody contemporary society. Still, the atmosphere and "fun" factor of exploring an irradiated wasteland was lost.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.