BruceWayne Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I say it's a hoax. There is no Sandra Reed on this list: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Bethesda_Softworks_employees There is no Sandra Reed that would fit the job description in the area where Bethesda is situated. What would an already fired employee gain by this kind of revenge? Breaking the NDA even more and getting sued by Bethesda? Boston has already been leaked in November 2013, as have male and female voice protagonists. http://kotaku.com/leaked-documents-reveal-that-fallout-4-is-real-set-in-1481322956 http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-11-fallout-4-is-in-development-set-in-boston-report There are also no 360 and PS3 versions announced.
HopliteZ Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 People are already judging the game and are bitching about graphics from the reveal trailer on the first fucking day it was published. Fucking A.
bjornk Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Again, the supposed leak is full of nonsense, as several reddit users such as Tulzei have explained. Tulzei 45 puntoshace 7 horas * No, sorry, this is entirely fake. The "leaked script" from kotaku turned out to be true, and this was just riding the wave of that. They got lucky making a few things up, and stole bits of information from other known rumors at that time (being set in boston, having a speaking protagonist) but overall it's false. There's a few things that give it away: It mentions save transfer, completely impossible given that fallout 3 was not equiped with that ability, and you can't retroactively build that feature, It needs to be made from the ground up. It mentions it's using an entirely new engine, built from scratch, then claims it uses the creation engine. That's very contradictory. It claims it's 3 times bigger than Skyrim, but skyrim took 3 years to make. No way they can triple it's size in just under a year. It's physically impossible. It claims an xbox 360 and ps3 version will be available, a lie, completely contradicting Todd Howard's sentiment. The bird's eye view mechanic is a lie, due to the nature of BGS' games, this is technically unstable. It would likely break the game. Forcing you into only playing a man is one of the biggest red flags. Bethesda is know for "Play how you want, be who you want" gameplay approach. They've kept this motto since arena, they aren't going to abandon it now. At the time this released in 2014, it claims that the game was 40% done on "next gen" and 15% done on "last gen". Not only is it impossible to comeplete 60% of the game (that's supposedly 3 times bigger than skyrim) in what I'm assuming is 1 year of dev time (I think it will be released this year, though if not, 2 years dev time) but that's also not how video game development works. You don't completely develop two separate versions of games and have them at different levels of completion, given that this person claims they're "the same on all platforms" just with enhanced graphics. Another point on the development side is this post claims BGS is doing all of that work themselves, which is just as unlikely. The post claims the "roadmap" for announcement is June announcement only (obviously they picked June because of E3, like we were doing every year since Skyrim), claims a cinematic trailer releases in July (already proven false due to the 3 minute gameplay trailer being released today) and claims the first gameplay trailer releases in august, (again, proven untrue today). They claim the dlc is already planned out as early as 2014, which isn't how BGS does dlc. They go with the flow, so to speak, never following a strict guideline. They claim a spin-off is being made by Behaviour Interactive. Seriously? Actually, the so called explanation you've posted was written 11 months ago and doesn't explain anything, we know a lot more now and it's full of shit.
Nixea Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Again, the supposed leak is full of nonsense, as several reddit users such as Tulzei have explained. Tulzei 45 puntoshace 7 horas * No, sorry, this is entirely fake. The "leaked script" from kotaku turned out to be true, and this was just riding the wave of that. They got lucky making a few things up, and stole bits of information from other known rumors at that time (being set in boston, having a speaking protagonist) but overall it's false. There's a few things that give it away: It mentions save transfer, completely impossible given that fallout 3 was not equiped with that ability, and you can't retroactively build that feature, It needs to be made from the ground up. It mentions it's using an entirely new engine, built from scratch, then claims it uses the creation engine. That's very contradictory. It claims it's 3 times bigger than Skyrim, but skyrim took 3 years to make. No way they can triple it's size in just under a year. It's physically impossible. It claims an xbox 360 and ps3 version will be available, a lie, completely contradicting Todd Howard's sentiment. The bird's eye view mechanic is a lie, due to the nature of BGS' games, this is technically unstable. It would likely break the game. Forcing you into only playing a man is one of the biggest red flags. Bethesda is know for "Play how you want, be who you want" gameplay approach. They've kept this motto since arena, they aren't going to abandon it now. At the time this released in 2014, it claims that the game was 40% done on "next gen" and 15% done on "last gen". Not only is it impossible to comeplete 60% of the game (that's supposedly 3 times bigger than skyrim) in what I'm assuming is 1 year of dev time (I think it will be released this year, though if not, 2 years dev time) but that's also not how video game development works. You don't completely develop two separate versions of games and have them at different levels of completion, given that this person claims they're "the same on all platforms" just with enhanced graphics. Another point on the development side is this post claims BGS is doing all of that work themselves, which is just as unlikely. The post claims the "roadmap" for announcement is June announcement only (obviously they picked June because of E3, like we were doing every year since Skyrim), claims a cinematic trailer releases in July (already proven false due to the 3 minute gameplay trailer being released today) and claims the first gameplay trailer releases in august, (again, proven untrue today). They claim the dlc is already planned out as early as 2014, which isn't how BGS does dlc. They go with the flow, so to speak, never following a strict guideline. They claim a spin-off is being made by Behaviour Interactive. Seriously? Actually, the so called explanation you've posted was written 11 months ago and doesn't explain anything, we know a lot more now and it's full of shit. Err no, the explanation I've posted is 7 hours old and it's a response to that supposed leak and BruceWayne already proved this Sandra is a fake identity. Also, it would be helpful if you could at least try to back up your arguments while also being less rude, I believe I'm being perfectly polite to you.
testsubject013 Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I hope it wrong, but if it not I won't be getting the game until someone release a mod to fix it (or I learn how to mod well enough to do that myself however unlikely that is). and for the sake of argument they could have already been prosecuted once for violating the NDA. so this was nothing more than and act of petty revenge for them
Foulmouth Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 People are already judging the game and are bitching about graphics from the reveal trailer on the first fucking day it was published. Fucking A. Bitches like bitchin'. It's FUCKING FALLOUT 4 people !!!! Just be happy it's finally happening.
Warrunner Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 The likelyhood of the game being human-male character only is ridiculously slim. I think it would be the first Bethesda RPG uh, ever, to do that. It's Fallout 4, it'll probably be pretty good. However, lets be honest here: it will have an OK story, a world with quite a few plot holes, fairly few likable NPC's, and rather alot of cut and paste stuff, and 'cities' in it will be laughably small. It will also have all the weird scripting limitations that Skyrim has. Bethesda RPG's are always right in the 6/10 range (assuming an actual average is 5/10 and we're not using the retarded 'everything below a 7/10 is crap thing most modern reviewers seem to use) with their modability making it closer to 8/10. We will have to see how they implement of the paid modding system into it, because you can bet they are going to. I suspect that it'll be fun, but Witcher 3 will continue to shit all over it on sheer vanilla quality, the way it has on every Bethesda and Bioware game that've come out in the last, oh, twelve years.
Gameplayer Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 The likelyhood of the game being human-male character only is ridiculously slim. I think it would be the first Bethesda RPG uh, ever, to do that. I don't know, I just cant imagine Bethsada dropping the balls that hard right I mean come on....The flashback sequence could just as easily be male or female role. Anyway, Fo4... We know its Boston, that its main character is awoken from chrogentic sleep and that the main antagonist is the Institute, not really sure what people expect I mean should have seen that coming right. I mean think about the BoS mandate even the Lions Pride couldn't ignore something like that once DC was wrapped up. For anyone who played Fo3 and really snoped around in Rivet City well its all coming together. Should be a fun game. --------- I don't understand the whole lets resent Bethsada for mods bit. Sorry and I don't think paid mods are going to really fly again. I really like these games for the mods, I just gotta be honest, I don't play other games simply because the amount of modding is just way too limiting and those other games have to be just that much better than Fo3/Skyrim to even attract my interest. If those other games are not x2 as good as the modded games I just barely even glance at them. Thing is maybe its different since I don't bat an eye at or have any trouble modding or making mods.
Warrunner Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 The likelyhood of the game being human-male character only is ridiculously slim. I think it would be the first Bethesda RPG uh, ever, to do that. I don't know, I just cant imagine Bethsada dropping the balls that hard right I mean come on....The flashback sequence could just as easily be male or female role. Anyway, Fo4... We know its Boston, that its main character is awoken from chrogentic sleep and that the main antagonist is the Institute, not really sure what people expect I mean should have seen that coming right. I mean think about the BoS mandate even the Lions Pride couldn't ignore something like that once DC was wrapped up. For anyone who played Fo3 and really snoped around in Rivet City well its all coming together. Should be a fun game. I highly, highly suspect that the character will actually be a suspended brain in a machine ala Old World Blues and the character you walk around with will turn out to be one of those androids and that'll be the big plot point.
Gameplayer Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 Walking syth without knowing about it, that'd be fucking awesome, might be more than I'd expect from Bethsada. Damn if that doesn't happen we modders have to make it so!
bjornk Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 It mentions save transfer, completely impossible given that fallout 3 was not equiped with that ability, and you can't retroactively build that feature, It needs to be made from the ground up. No, not at all, all you need to do is to read a bunch of variables from the save file. It mentions it's using an entirely new engine, built from scratch, then claims it uses the creation engine. That's very contradictory. No, she mentions two different versions of the game using two different engines! It claims it's 3 times bigger than Skyrim, but skyrim took 3 years to make. No way they can triple it's size in just under a year. It's physically impossible. You don't know how long they have been working on this or how many people are there in the team or how fast they work. I've seen devs adding huge areas into a game within just a couple of months (see Black Desert for instance) It claims an xbox 360 and ps3 version will be available, a lie, completely contradicting Todd Howard's sentiment. You obviously haven't heard the cross-gen rumor of yesterday. They may also have been dropped it after she left. The bird's eye view mechanic is a lie, due to the nature of BGS' games, this is technically unstable. It would likely break the game. If you zoom all the way out in both FNV or Skyrim, it's pretty much a bird's eye view and it's stable, also you don't even know what the other engine will be. Forcing you into only playing a man is one of the biggest red flags. Bethesda is know for "Play how you want, be who you want" gameplay approach. They've kept this motto since arena, they aren't going to abandon it now. They don't technically abandon it. She says you'll be able to play as a female at the end of the main story. At the time this released in 2014, it claims that the game was 40% done on "next gen" and 15% done on "last gen". Not only is it impossible to comeplete 60% of the game (that's supposedly 3 times bigger than skyrim) in what I'm assuming is 1 year of dev time (I think it will be released this year, though if not, 2 years dev time) but that's also not how video game development works. You don't completely develop two separate versions of games and have them at different levels of completion, given that this person claims they're "the same on all platforms" just with enhanced graphics. See #3 Another point on the development side is this post claims BGS is doing all of that work themselves, which is just as unlikely. Really? Why is that? They did FO3 and Skyrim, didn't they? The post claims the "roadmap" for announcement is June announcement only (obviously they picked June because of E3, like we were doing every year since Skyrim), claims a cinematic trailer releases in July (already proven false due to the 3 minute gameplay trailer being released today) and claims the first gameplay trailer releases in august, (again, proven untrue today). Nope. Today's trailer wasn't a gameplay trailer, it was the cinematic trailer. They claim the dlc is already planned out as early as 2014, which isn't how BGS does dlc. They go with the flow, so to speak, never following a strict guideline. That's just your opinion and doesn't prove anything. They claim a spin-off is being made by Behaviour Interactive. Seriously? See below Err no, the explanation I've posted is 7 hours old and it's a response to that supposed leak and BruceWayne already proved this Sandra is a fake identity. Also, it would be helpful if you could at least try to back up your arguments while also being less rude, I believe I'm being perfectly polite to you. Sorry, if sounded rude. The arguments in the explanation you posted are pretty similar to the stuff posted 11 months ago under her message and just as ignorant. First of all, if they fired her, then she was apparently not a critical employee. A non critical employee cannot know all the details of the project, especially what happened after she had left. There may be further changes in the project that may or may not conflict with what she said back then. Anyway, I've written my counter arguments in the post you quoted above. As to whether or not she is a fake identity, we can't know that just by looking at the employee list on wikia, she could even be an intern. There are details in her post that I've never seen elsewhere until today. Also, there's the issue of leaked FO4 documents. Maybe she was indeed the one responsible? PS. I leaked some of the first Fallout 4 info by accident, and it ended up in the hands of Kotaku. Oops. Where did Sandra get that Behaviour Interactive name, I wonder. Because they do seem to have a partnership with Bethesda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviour_Interactive
Warrunner Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Well, it makes sense, it would explain the flashbacks to pre-war and would be using demonstrated, existent technology from the series. Also it would be cool.
Gameplayer Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 Sure could just be a disgruntled Intern also testers like that don't get a whole build anyway. Bad move on her part, but who is going to sue when your trying to keep it all under wraps and such. Besides Interns don't have any money to go after. I can see it now, "Whatta you in fer?" "I leaked information about a game." "Well that sucks speakin of that uh bend over." I wouldn't be surprised if in a test build you only got to play as a male.
Guest endgameaddiction Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I love how it starts off with "it's all over" as in all the speculations, anticipations and rumors if it's going to exist or not. They did a good job on that.
testsubject013 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 the good thing about being a pessimist is that I'm either right, or pleasantly surprised -robin ayers I would rather expect the worse and be wrong then hope for the best and be wrong, and beside that it nice to vent and get it out of the way granted it just a rumor but still
bjornk Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Based on what SandraReed says, I believe the game is going to be something like this, first, a story-based introduction part in which you play a specific (male) character up to a certain point (possibly pre-apocalypse) and then when the first part is over, you'll be able to continue as a male character or you'll be able to create a female character and continue the game with her (post-apocalypse). Not a traditional Bethesda game obviously.
bjornk Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 http://www.amazon.com/Fallout-4-PC/dp/B00YQ2MM2M/ref=sr_1_5_twi_3_gam/192-7138415-1944131?ie=UTF8&qid=1433386996&sr=8-5&keywords=fallout http://www.gamestop.com/pc/games/fallout-4/122220 http://store.steampowered.com/app/377160/ Release Date: December 31, 2015 Says "Female Protagonist" on its Steam tag.
Guest Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I hope to god the graphics of TES VI is not as bad as Fallout 4... it almost looks exactly like Skyrim's (vanilla).
Gameplayer Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 Its gonna be fucking awesome, Going to just buy it. Don't have the money for a next gen graphics card, gotta spend that on books, classes, gym membership, uh stuff, and tutor. Release date 12/31 ouch Bethsada you really know how to make December not cool.
sora3 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Based on what SandraReed says, I believe the game is going to be something like this, first, a story-based introduction part in which you play a specific (male) character up to a certain point (possibly pre-apocalypse) and then when the first part is over, you'll be able to continue as a male character or you'll be able to create a female character and continue the game with her (post-apocalypse). Not a traditional Bethesda game obviously. Could we not focus on the rumours that one POTENTIAL employee spread? As noted by Nixea and others, development can change at whim. And honestly speaking, I'd more inclined to listen to Todd Howard or Pete Hines than her.
tacomarine Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Yeah, lets forget about the 'employee' alright? It's getting childish. Even on the slim fucking chance there won't be a female character, HOW MANY ALTERNATE START MODS ARE THERE FOR NEW VEGAS?. Lets focus on what we know. FALLOUT 4 BITCHES! I had to. I worked through the release trailer. I know what i'm doing with my vacation time now.
Guest endgameaddiction Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I have to save up a lot if I want to play this. My dinosaur PC is still running smooth, but performance wise, it's nearly taken a plunge into the toilet bowl with Skyrim. And I refuse to use low quality settings, so FO4 is going to be an impact on this old hag. Ah well, it serves as a motivation to build a new one.
Lazy Leno Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Can anyone please explain to me why they think there will be a paid modding thing with this game? I have absolutely no idea why you would speculate about that as a possibility.
Guest endgameaddiction Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Because they tried to pull this back on the 24th of April this year with Skyrim and it massively failed with a huge protest. They accepted that it wouldn't work with Skyrim because of it's existing mod community and never said they were going to turn down the idea, which has left us with questions on whether or not they are going to pull this implementation on Fallout 4 since it's a brand new game. It makes perfect sense as for them to target Fallout 4 with this monetize system.
Lazy Leno Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Because they tried to pull this back on the 24th of April this year with Skyrim and it massively failed with a huge protest. They accepted that it wouldn't work with Skyrim because of it's existing mod community and never said they were going to turn down the idea, which has left us with questions on whether or not they are going to pull this implementation on Fallout 4 since it's a brand new game. It makes perfect sense as for them to target Fallout 4 with this monetize system. I clearly missed that whole issue, but a cursory internet search has turned up that: It was Valve's initiative, which isn't even slightly surprising considering the number of ways they're trying to reward community contributors for their own games. They were simply creating a framework that other games could easily use. Valve themselves axed the feature. Not just for Skyrim, but for the Steam Workshop as a whole. Bethesda quoted as saying "Even though we had the best intentions, the feedback has been clear -- this is not a feature you want. Your support means everything to us, and we hear you." I'm pretty sure Bethesda knows that the modding community is its single greatest asset, and I don't think anyone in their right mind should believe they're going to throw it away.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.