Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Yes! About time. Apparently, the next one is going to take place in a nuclear winter. Looking forward to this next-gen experience.

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/2173192/fallout_4_teaser_site_updated.html

Site Countdown

I don't see Obsidian's name on that. I am disappoint.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I don't see Obsidian's name on that. I am disappoint.

It's by Bethesda...which clearly isn't a bad choice for a fallout game. But, yes, I liked NV more than 3.


Edit - I suspect that this game will be astoundingly awesome and delicious. Bethesda made Skyrim, man...Skyrim...

I felt Fallout 3 was a much better game than NV. Better quests and setting. I never finished NV but I did finish Fallout 3.

And I felt NV was a far superior game to Fallout 3 AND Skyrim. So much better written, so much more interesting in terms of quests, factions and characters, just an all around incredible game.

No Obsidian is always bad news to me.

Originally posted by Nephthys
And I felt NV was a far superior game to Fallout 3 AND Skyrim. So much better written, so much more interesting in terms of quests, factions and characters, just an all around incredible game.

No Obsidian is always bad news to me.

Originally posted by Nephthys
And I felt NV was a far superior game to Fallout 3 AND Skyrim. So much better written, so much more interesting in terms of quests, factions and characters, just an all around incredible game.

I wouldn't say "far superior", but it was definitely superior. I had so much more fun in NV than Skyrim.


But Skyrim was still pretty kickass.

Damn straight. Skyrim was still a fun game, but as people say it was as wide as an ocean but deep as a puddle. The quests suuuuck, the factions were frankly dull, there was no-one interesting in the entire game and it just generally wasn't as good as NV. In the end I played a lot of Skyrim because there was a lot to do. But I played a lot of New Vegas because there was a lot I wanted to do. Beyond just completing quests for completions sake.

Though I will say that FO3 had some awesome atmosphere. God, remember the Dunwich Building? Fuuuuuck! And the beginning section was one of the best I've ever played. And then that first time you step into the Wasteland was so cool and had real impact. Definitely a good game. Its just that ultimately I didn't give a shit about anyone or anything in the entire game. Other than the dog, which lets be fair, its impossible not to get emotionally attached to dogs in games. >_<

Also I made an Abe Lincoln character in FO3 and ran around killing slavers with his hat and rifle which was pretty epic I must say.

FO3 really gave me no reason to have bonds with anyone but Dad, and that's it. Meanwhile, NV gives me all these people trying to make it, with dynamic personalities and social push-and-pull going on, etc. It was a well made game. I'm not saying Bethesda will make junk, but Obsidian ought to have exclusive rights to the writing at least.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Also I made an Abe Lincoln character in FO3 and ran around killing slavers with his hat and rifle which was pretty epic I must say.

Oh yeah, the Abe Lincoln repeater...dat accuracy. That was my favorite weapon in that game, by far. To be able to shoot where you aim seems like a no-brainer, right? WRONG! Fallout games like to add a dice-roll accuracy percentage to where you aim.


That's also why the YCS/186 was my favorite weapon in New Vegas: very powerful and very accurate...but still not spot on like Abe's repeater.


I hope the next game has a gun that has no spread (with the proper skill point investments (such as at least 75 points into guns)).

Originally posted by Smasandian
I felt Fallout 3 was a much better game than NV. Better quests and setting. I never finished NV but I did finish Fallout 3.

Degenerates like you belong on a cross.

Originally posted by Nephthys

Also I made an Abe Lincoln character in FO3 and ran around killing slavers with his hat and rifle which was pretty epic I must say.

You should screenie this stuff.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Degenerates like you belong on a cross.

lmao.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Degenerates like you belong on a cross. I loled

Unfortunately, I agree with him. Fallout 3 >>>> New Vegas. Skryim destroyed both at the same time though.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
I loled

Unfortunately, I agree with him. Fallout 3 >>>> New Vegas. Skryim destroyed both at the same time though.

Watch yourself profligate.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
I loled

Unfortunately, I agree with him. Fallout 3 >>>> New Vegas. Skryim destroyed both at the same time though.



Liberty Prime alone is better than the entirety of NV (or anything else in FO3 for that matter).

Boone >>>>>>>> Liberty Prime.

"You and I, we're just a couple of problem solvers."

Boone is a hardass.

Skyrim is better than New Vegas though.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Skyrim is better than New Vegas though.

Nah.



But it's the difference between a game that I would rate a 9 versus a game I would rate an 8.5...

Originally posted by NemeBro
Skyrim is better than New Vegas though.

In what ways?

Its excellent writing? Its engaging characters? Dragons? The deep themes? The well-designed quests? The interesting factions? The amazing gameplay? Dragons?

Originally posted by Nephthys

Its excellent writing?

Yes.



Yes.



Yes.



Yes.



Yes.



Yes.



Yes.



You already said that.

Add in a better overworld and better mods and it becomes a stomp in Skyrim's favor.

Ok, but is it possible to get fisted in Skyrim without mods?

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002861351/736856903_challenge_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg

Originally posted by Nephthys
Ok, but is it possible to get fisted in Skyrim without mods?

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002861351/736856903_challenge_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg

Is it possible to hide in the corner of a room while watching a vampire loli sleep in New Vegas?

Skyrim sucks and is overrated.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Skyrim sucks and is overrated. You're gay and like penis.

I just got a camgirl to play Rock Lobster on ukelele. Your arguments are invalid.

Lol, camgirl. Loser.

Says the guy who gets emotional over incest porn.

Hey, incest is the bestcest* other than selfcest!




*This is a play on "bestest." Laugh.

Skyrim looks prettier and TES has tons of great lore. It also has more diverse gameplay thanks to spells, transformations, and weapons. However, it lacks the dark charm that NV possesses and is more of a Nordic standard fantasy epic compared to a nuclear fallout crapsack with grey-and-black morality storylines. Mods for both are extensive so unless you're talking graphics overhauls, I don't think this has merit. I've read through most of the mods for both on Nexus (slow day at work) and it's more than enough.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Site Countdown

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha I loled.

At least the sight getting trademarked by Bethesda is real. Thats a start.

PWNED!

Fallout 4 still exists

:carefully gets hopes back up:

Originally posted by Nephthys
:carefully gets hopes back up:


Nope, nothing but trash here.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/07/fallout-4-rumor-puts-reveal-at-bethesdas-press-conference

Yet another rumor. I'm already prepping myself for the inevitable disappointment.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/11/fallout-4-cinematic-trailer-allegedly-made-by-guillermo-del-toros-studio

E3 is looking mighty sexy right about now

Originally posted by Arachnid1
You're gay and like penis.
Mee too

If this takes place during nuclear winter I expect this game to be harder than the other ones

Why

Do you not know what nuclear winter is?

What is it

Imagine a never ending snowstorm. Temperatures from -20 to -100 the snow is radioactive and never seeing the sun. It never stops snowing. It's almost impossible to survive

First of all, Bethesda is as likely to implement that as they were to implement cold mechanics in Skyrim

Second of all, no, in a nuclear winter the winter isn't actually radioactive, all it means is there's so much soot in the atmosphere that it's basically reversing the greenhouse effect, where the biggest danger lies in famine.

And third, Fallout currently takes place two hundred years after the bombs fell, the soot would have dissipated by then and the climate would be relatively normal, which would make sense since we see civilization thriving as of New Vegas.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
First of all, Bethesda is as likely to implement that as they were to implement cold mechanics in Skyrim

Second of all, no, in a nuclear winter the winter isn't actually radioactive, all it means is there's so much soot in the atmosphere that it's basically reversing the greenhouse effect, where the biggest danger lies in famine.

And third, Fallout currently takes place two hundred years after the bombs fell, the soot would have dissipated by then and the climate would be relatively normal, which would make sense since we see civilization thriving as of New Vegas.
Actually we don't know what will happen in a nuclear winter. There are a couple hypothesis on it. Of course nuclear winter is pretty hypothetical

I've never read anything that suggests we'd get radioactive snow.

But even besides that, we do know that it wouldn't last 200 years. So unless this is set immediately after the Great War, I don't see it.

Well a nuclear winter only lasts 20 years so it's going to have to be within that range if it's going to be accurate

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/02/fallout-4-countdown-clock-appears-runs-out-tomorrow

http://i.imgur.com/NFczrTO.png

It would be pretty damn sick if Fallout 4 gets released this year......

Fallout 3 is one of the only sandbox open world games where I explored pretty much all the areas in the map. I loved how the map was big but manageable and filled with interesting things to do.

Originally posted by Smasandian
It would be pretty damn sick if Fallout 4 gets released this year......

Fallout 3 is one of the only sandbox open world games where I explored pretty much all the areas in the map. I loved how the map was big but manageable and filled with interesting things to do. Same. It likely would be an instant GOTY winner.

InB4 Fallout Online lol

Originally posted by Smasandian
It would be pretty damn sick if Fallout 4 gets released this year......

Fallout 3 is one of the only sandbox open world games where I explored pretty much all the areas in the map. I loved how the map was big but manageable and filled with interesting things to do.

That's how it was for me in New Vegas.

And I remember being disgusted by a side quest where a family was killed by cannibals and their bodies were in pieces. Very few games disgust me.


New Vegas is in my top 3 all time games.

I want Fallout 4 so bad. Even a watered version of 3 or New Vegas. I just love the shit out of the RPG system. I want it sooooo bad!!!!

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Same. It likely would be an instant GOTY winner.

Not with Witcher 3 in contention. It could be a serious contender though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's how it was for me in New Vegas.

And I remember being disgusted by a side quest where a family was killed by cannibals and their bodies were in pieces. Very few games disgust me.


New Vegas is in my top 3 all time games.

I want Fallout 4 so bad. Even a watered version of 3 or New Vegas. I just love the shit out of the RPG system. I want it sooooo bad!!!!

I didn't like New Vegas as much as Fallout 3. I think Fallout 3 had much more memorable areas to explore.

GE2BkLqMef4

Just saw the trailer. Totally stoked for this game. I wonder if its Fall 2015...I'm guessing it is because the trailer looks like it has some engine scenes in it.

I wonder what the PC specs are......hopefully not too crazy.

I'm sincerely hoping the voice is only for the trailer and we aren't getting voiced protagonist bullshit.

EDIT: At least the animations look remarkably improved

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
I'm sincerely hoping the voice is only for the trailer and we aren't getting voiced protagonist bullshit.

EDIT: At least the animations look remarkably improved

It probably isn't.

Bethesda games never had voice overs for the character you play. I'm not sure why they would start now.

Because it's what all the cool kids are doing

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Because it's what all the cool kids are doing
Peer pressure now in the gaming business

All the Fallouts have been released the same year they were announced, so hopefully the same will apply here.

I cant wait to kill some bad@ss looking NPC for his hat and trench coat effectively wiping out 10 side missions!

I've never played any games in the Fallout series. Could someone tell me what makes the series good?

Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
I've never played any games in the Fallout series. Could someone tell me what makes the series good?

Best Shooter RPGs made, imo.


I love Shooter RPGs.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas take place in post-apocolyptic United States after the year 2200. The setting is "retro-futuristic." Meaning, the style is in 1940s and 1950s US style and similar technologies. Examples include the old school monochrome Cathode Ray Tube monitors and cars. The locales in the game are real places in the US. The world virtually destroyed itself in a nuclear holocaust in 2077. There is AI, robots, mutants, and Ghouls (mutated and ugly looking "zombie-looking" humans that survived the Great War), to name a few types of humanoids.

Read more, here:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3




Typical RPG system: stat points, strategic conversations, skill checks in conversations, skill checks to open stuff, etc.

It plays more like a table top RPG system. Real "dice rolls" to pass a check. And the great thing about it is you can just reload your save if you do not get the desired dice roll (which is why I prefer single player RPGs and not MMOs: I can't just reload my save).

It has equipment management systems, too. It has currency. It has crafting. It has recipes. it has open world exploration (genuine open world: not watered down or fake open world). It has many side quests. Some side quests are huge/expansive.

It has the typical "if you did x, y, and z, your end is 1" type of system.

And your endings are actually hugely significant at the end of the game. Like...entire nations crumble if you kill Person J, or Person K.

For me, it is kind of like Skyrim but better in every way. I loved Skyrim. Skyrim has a better potions/equipment system, obviously (but I thought it was too much. There is a such thing as too many features). But New Vegas is a better RPG and...guns n'shit, yo.

I love playing a sniper. VATS , in slow-mo, with a good sniper rifle, feels soooooo very delicious.



Edit - BTW, I typed this all up because I love you. You had better damn well appreciate the effort I put into this post. uhuh

This game looks awesome

Looks good and all, but I think it's time Bethesda make a whole new engine. They're using a modified version of the same engine they've been using since Morrowind and it's really starting to show its age.

Should I give this series' previous installments a shot?

Originally posted by Reflassshh
Should I give this series' previous installments a shot? Do you have a somewhat good PC?

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Do you have a somewhat good PC? Yeah, pretty decent. But I am more of a console player.

Originally posted by Reflassshh
Yeah, pretty decent. But I am more of a console player. If you can get past how dated the graphics are on console, definitely get it (and they even looked bad back then). If not, download it on PC, get some visual overhaul mods, and whatever other mods tickle your pickle. It's an amazing experience on both console and PC, but PC is the definitive experience IMO

You can play the first two on any old toaster, but they're not everyone's cup of two. Depends on if you like isometric games or not.

Originally posted by BackFire
Looks good and all, but I think it's time Bethesda make a whole new engine. They're using a modified version of the same engine they've been using since Morrowind and it's really starting to show its age.

I'll echo this- it looks pretty ragged, and as part of Fallout 3's impact was its immersive modelling of the post-nuclear environment, F4 has issues if it can't replicate that by modern day standards.

Beyond that, I'd be looking to see what actually distinguishes this from F3 to make it a sequel rather than a New Vegas style spin-off.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Beyond that, I'd be looking to see what actually distinguishes this from F3 to make it a sequel rather than a New Vegas style spin-off.

I would love it if it was like a New Vegas style spin-off. That's like...exactly what I want.


But I may be riding a hype train. Why do we not want Fallout 4 to be like a New Vegas style spin-off?

I'm totally riding the hype train.

Watching the breakdown of the trailer makes me want to play F3 again.....even though I shouldn't because when Fallout 4 gets released, I will be totally involved with it because I haven't played the series in awhile....

But again, I really want to play it and I haven't touched any DLC.......tough choice!

And I need to play Witcher 3 for a bit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would love it if it was like a New Vegas style spin-off. That's like...exactly what I want.


But I may be riding a hype train. Why do we not want Fallout 4 to be like a New Vegas style spin-off?

Because that's old and well-trodden and they already did a ton of DLC for it and that's all played out- and it was already looking a bit dated back then. Vegas was already the 'more of the same' sequel. It would be poor to do that again.

Fallout 3 made a name for itself with a successful re-invention of the franchise, in the sense that the original Fallout 3 plan almost certainly would not have worked out as well with.

Not that Fallout 4 can really expect to be as different as 2 to 3 was, but if it is going to be a true sequel- after so long, with so much time to consider for conceptual change and with the gaming market shifting as well- it needs to have something beyond a gimmick to distinguish itself.

As it is, that re-use of an increasingly tired engine is not a good sign. What is this going to do that the others did not already do? It had better not still have the clunky skill system issues still.

I was always hoping a new Fallout would apply the immersive world view to a more Fallout 1/2 sense of scale- but no, it seems like we're just going to get 'vaguely around Boston'; this scale issue is something I've been wanting Bethesda to deal with since Morrowind.

All I am really seeing in that trailer is a slightly shinier (literally) version of what I already played.

Even a plot innovation would have been welcome- how about making it a prequel? Set it just before and just after the bombs drop. Plenty of story to find there. But I suspect we'll have, basically, the same damn story again.

I mean, take what Nephthys says above about the emotional effect of the first time you leave the bunker in FO3. I'd agree that that was a good moment. Looking at the trailer, though, I see the exact same darn effect! That's just not good enough for sequels in my view.

Gamespot did a breakdown on the trailer and they mentioned that it looks like the setting is not as decrepit as Fallout 3 setting. After watching the trailer again, it does look like that is the case so either Boston wasn't as bombed as much as Washington or it takes place in much shorter timeframe as Fallout 3.

Some people like scale and some people like smaller areas to explore. Personally, I rather have 'vaguely around Boston' instead of multiple cities.

Lastly, while you are correct regarding more of the same, I'm hoping to do add something to the formula. As well, games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim are not very plentiful so even if Fallout 4 plays similiar to Skyrim/Fallout 3, I don't think it's much a problem, or at least for me. It's not like it's a yearly release (aka Assassins Creed) or have many clones (aka CoD).

I kinda take that the other way around- Assassin's Creed at least has the excuse of being a formulaic yearly release that barely ever innovates- I'm not expecting any better (unlike the jump from AC1 to 2, which was a good example of a sequel building rather than repeating)- zero interest in buying games made on that basis so it cannot disappoint.

This has no excuse in that regard.

The problem is, they give you small areas but treat them as if geographically large- that's why you end up with a ridiculous number of Vaults within a five minute walking distance of Washington. It didn't feel detailed enough to actually be a big city but the setting was too cramped to be the expansive landscape they seemed to treat it as instead.

I'll wait and see if there are any real ideas behind this- but I'm definitely not going to play just more of the same.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Because that's old and well-trodden and they already did a ton of DLC for it and that's all played out- and it was already looking a bit dated back then. Vegas was already the 'more of the same' sequel. It would be poor to do that again.

Fallout 3 made a name for itself with a successful re-invention of the franchise, in the sense that the original Fallout 3 plan almost certainly would not have worked out as well with.

Not that Fallout 4 can really expect to be as different as 2 to 3 was, but if it is going to be a true sequel- after so long, with so much time to consider for conceptual change and with the gaming market shifting as well- it needs to have something beyond a gimmick to distinguish itself.

As it is, that re-use of an increasingly tired engine is not a good sign. What is this going to do that the others did not already do? It had better not still have the clunky skill system issues still.

I was always hoping a new Fallout would apply the immersive world view to a more Fallout 1/2 sense of scale- but no, it seems like we're just going to get 'vaguely around Boston'; this scale issue is something I've been wanting Bethesda to deal with since Morrowind.

All I am really seeing in that trailer is a slightly shinier (literally) version of what I already played.

Even a plot innovation would have been welcome- how about making it a prequel? Set it just before and just after the bombs drop. Plenty of story to find there. But I suspect we'll have, basically, the same damn story again.

I mean, take what Nephthys says above about the emotional effect of the first time you leave the bunker in FO3. I'd agree that that was a good moment. Looking at the trailer, though, I see the exact same darn effect! That's just not good enough for sequels in my view.

I'm definitely on board with improved story telling in an RPG: that's always good. I liked what I got from F3 and NV, no doubt. But improving it will not hurt my feelings.

Everything else including the skills system? I loved them. NV had almost the perfect skills and skill point system. Almost. Not quite. But it pretty much did everything I wanted it to.

As far as the "look" and the engine this is built on, I don't want or need innovative graphics on this. Middle of the road is good enough. From what I saw, however, it looked rather good.


What I want is a full-sized expansion, pretty much. I want a whole game that feels like a massive DLC expansion pack for NV with some improved system elements and a new story. If I am lucky, a prettier game, too.


When we are talking about one of my top 3 games of all time, a New Vegas style sequel would tickle my fancy. Any additional improvements are just bonus.

Who cares about graphics. Especially in a Fallout game. That shit is unimportant as hell.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
Even a plot innovation would have been welcome- how about making it a prequel? Set it just before and just after the bombs drop. Plenty of story to find there. But I suspect we'll have, basically, the same damn story again.

There is a rumor that you're going to play a pre-war soldier that was cryogenically frozen and you'll play going into the vault as the bombs drop and then leaving 200 years later. So that could be cool.

I'd also imagine that it would be pretty hard for Boston to be too similar to the previous games given that Boston is the home of the Commonwealth and the Institute. If you don't recall them, the Institute basically makes Blade Runner Replicants and super advanced technology in their sealed dome while keeping the peasants out in a war-ravened wasteland.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I mean, take what Nephthys says above about the emotional effect of the first time you leave the bunker in FO3. I'd agree that that was a good moment. Looking at the trailer, though, I see the exact same darn effect! That's just not good enough for sequels in my view.

It's gonna be pretty dang hard to have the main character get out of a vault and not have that moment.

The Fallout stat system has always been flagrantly broken- Intelligence is massively overpowered and leads to the nerds being the best fighters because they have the most skill points (where giant strong but dumb guys can't beat them in a wrench fight), and meanwhile each game flops around like crazy trying to work out what Charisma does (Wasteland 2*, the recent sequel to the game Fallout was a spinoff from, ended up with the same problem, showing how decades old this issue is).

They need to de-couple stats from skills- it never works. Really, they need to re-think from scratch because the system ends up hosingly exploitable and dull. In fact, no Fallout game has ever worked well in terms of its stats/skills engine- it always needed the rest of the gameplay to obscure the holes.

* If you've not played Wasteland 2 you really should- that was an example of pushing an idea forwards, though they lost the story pacing near the end.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Who cares about graphics. Especially in a Fallout game. That shit is unimportant as hell. .

I strongly disagree in this one. Immersion was part of Fallout 3s schtick and it just about had the graphics to do it. It won't hold up now. Just looking at that trailer puts me off immediately- I'm seeing the old, tired textures and jagged lines. I'm not interested in that visual design.

And if you don't mind that moment being a visually identical and imaginatively bankrupt repetition, then fine. But such re-treads represent a lot of what I despise about gaming. It's just going around in circles, not pushing on.

Oddly enough I replayed Fallout NV and 3 a few months ago and I had no issues getting immersed in them. Graphics only need to be so good as to be capable of immersion and then it doesn't really matter beyond giving nerds boners and letting reviews and PR devs gush about "nEX GEN". It's not like the threshold for immersion climes along with the graphics. If you personally can't get into a new release that doesn't shine like a hollywood dime then that's your mental barriers, imo. Besides, I don't think the trailer looked any worse than some big budget titles released recently like Bloodborne or Inquisition. Both gorgeous.

50% of Fallout is nostalgia and call-backs. Like, the entire Fallout series is built on that stuff.

Blimey, this is nothing to do with mental barriers- just a very reasonable expectation that people make an artistic effort to reach the bar (which other people are doing and Bethesda did once). We can't keep being satisfied with the limited achievements of the past (and limited they were- they worked in context), and if you are talking about nostalgia, I reckon that this is indeed the force working on your mental misreading of the value of those things- there's certainly no other way I can square that with the idea that it didn't look worse than Bloodborne. It looks relatively awful.

They can be a lot more immersive than they are, and graphics are a part of that. If you choose to do first person open world, getting that right is important. If it looks old and tired, it will feel that way as well.

I hope this isn't going tio get a pass from some just because it is Fallout.

Immersion pretty much is a mental barrier, is what I meant. A game needs to be capable of tricking your brain into getting immersed in a situation and reacting naturally without noticing the artifice. I feel that's achievable with serviceable graphics in this day and age. I think it's the expectation that "it's 2015 so games should have amazing graphics" is the issue with people failing to be immersed by things they would have been 5 years ago.

I don't think what we saw in the trailer (not the final product) fails to reach the bar. I think whether or not something looks old and tired is more about presentation and visual design than straight up graphics. What I saw looked promising to me.

I think it does get something of a pass, even if for no other reason than that we're all probably going to just mod it to look better a month after launch anyway like with Skyrim. But also, Fallout isn't a big setpiece action title that's banking on wowing the audience. It's meant to immerse through worldbuilding and narrative, not graphics.

I do however, agree that Bethesda should retire the Gamebryo engine. They've been using it since Morrowind, it's pretty ridiculous by this point.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The Fallout stat system has always been flagrantly broken- Intelligence is massively overpowered and leads to the nerds being the best fighters because they have the most skill points (where giant strong but dumb guys can't beat them in a wrench fight), and meanwhile each game flops around like crazy trying to work out what Charisma does (Wasteland 2*, the recent sequel to the game Fallout was a spinoff from, ended up with the same problem, showing how decades old this issue is).


I loved that particular aspect of the stat system: Intelligence giving more. It has been ages since I've messed with that system but doesn't the "skill point boosting" effect have a cap? Meaning, you can't just keep adding more and more to intelligence to bust out more and more skill points when you level up.

And the level caps (both the player and how many skill points you can invest) make the system meted, as well.

Also, I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to fighting. I have never played a Fallout game for PvP. You want a different system for PvP, it sounds like.

As far as being able to earn lots of skill points, yeah, that's kind of the point. Impatient players are rewarded with lots of damage/power and other things if they don't want the long-haul in skill points. Patient players who like to play tactically, like I do, are willing to have a tough beginning to the game to have a delicious mid to end game with lots of skills.

The stat system is fine so long as you're not given ways to break it over your knee like you can in 3.

Some of most immersive experiences have been with games that look like crap. Half Life being the prime example. I played that game on a absolute shit computer and I don't even remember what happened that weekend....

Hell, going back to Fallout 3 five years after the game was released still was more immersive than most games I played that year.

Graphics definitly help (especially with weather effects) but it's not everything. Even though I would be happy with a new engine (and you are right, it should be a new engine), I still will play the **** out of it.

As far as Fallout 4 having improved graphics and a new engine, I'll say this:


The graphics look better.

Looks like a new or greatly updated engine.

According to this lady, next gen and PC will use a new engine.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/28v2dn/i_played_fallout_4/

I really hope that's fake.

Check Kotaku regarding that post. They label is a fake.

Prime reasons is that most of that information was taking from something Kotaku published previous to that post. Also, the poster mentions that the information she leaked by accident was to Kotaku and they basically, "who the **** is this person"

Apparently, that post on reddit is making waves on the interwebs because too much of is true that could not be known until the trailer was released.

Kind of. Yeah, they got Boston and the idea behind a voice character.

Here is a response to that post.

http://kotaku.com/latest-popular-fallout-4-rumor-sure-seems-like-bs-1709009561

Considering the two mains things (she said she worked there and released info to Kotaku) were completely off, it's bogus.

Also, according to Kotaku, a lot of that info was leaked before the post...

Yep. Rumors about it being set in Boston have been around for well over a year.

http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2015/06/04/fallout4trailercity1433355574png-505b16.png

http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2015/06/04/fallout4trailerhighway1433355605png-64b496.png

http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2015/06/04/fallout4trailerdeathclaw1433355581png-64b495.png

I don't think I'd have any problems getting immersed into that

As far as innovation goes, sounds like they're going with a fully voice protagonist, which would be a first for a Bethesda game.

Boston?... meh.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Best Shooter RPGs made, imo.


I love Shooter RPGs.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas take place in post-apocolyptic United States after the year 2200. The setting is "retro-futuristic." Meaning, the style is in 1940s and 1950s US style and similar technologies. Examples include the old school monochrome Cathode Ray Tube monitors and cars. The locales in the game are real places in the US. The world virtually destroyed itself in a nuclear holocaust in 2077. There is AI, robots, mutants, and Ghouls (mutated and ugly looking "zombie-looking" humans that survived the Great War), to name a few types of humanoids.

Read more, here:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3


Typical RPG system: stat points, strategic conversations, skill checks in conversations, skill checks to open stuff, etc.

The setting sounds very interesting. I think Bioshock: Infinite is the only retro-futuristic game I've played.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It plays more like a table top RPG system. Real "dice rolls" to pass a check. And the great thing about it is you can just reload your save if you do not get the desired dice roll (which is why I prefer single player RPGs and not MMOs: I can't just reload my save).

I prefer single player RPG's to MMOs as well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It has equipment management systems, too. It has currency. It has crafting. It has recipes. it has open world exploration (genuine open world: not watered down or fake open world). It has many side quests. Some side quests are huge/expansive.

It has the typical "if you did x, y, and z, your end is 1" type of system.

And your endings are actually hugely significant at the end of the game. Like...entire nations crumble if you kill Person J, or Person K.

For me, it is kind of like Skyrim but better in every way. I loved Skyrim. Skyrim has a better potions/equipment system, obviously (but I thought it was too much. There is a such thing as too many features). But New Vegas is a better RPG and...guns n'shit, yo.

I love playing a sniper. VATS , in slow-mo, with a good sniper rifle, feels soooooo very delicious.

Skyrim with guns? Awesome.

What do you mean by fake open world?

Do you decisions in-game affect the state of the world?

Since this is an rpg, is it class-based like typical RPG's, or is there more freedom to specialize, like in Skyrim?

Is there an absurb amount of grinding to carry out, or is it reasonable?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - BTW, I typed this all up because I love you. You had better damn well appreciate the effort I put into this post. uhuh

Damn, thanks, yes I appreciate the effort. I wuv you too.

So if I decide to play Fallout 4, is there any need to have played 3 and NV?

Originally posted by Arachnid1
http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2015/06/04/fallout4trailercity1433355574png-505b16.png

http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2015/06/04/fallout4trailerhighway1433355605png-64b496.png

http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2015/06/04/fallout4trailerdeathclaw1433355581png-64b495.png

I don't think I'd have any problems getting immersed into that

I'm not a graphics expert or anything, but from the videos I've seen of 3, those screenshots look a good deal better.
They don't look current gen though.

Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
The setting sounds very interesting. I think Bioshock: Infinite is the only retro-futuristic game I've played.

Yes, Bioshock is the closest "art style" analog I can think of. Very apt comparison. Obviously, the art styles are different but it has the same theme.



Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
I prefer single player RPG's to MMOs as well.

That's because you're not dirty filthy pleb. uhuh



Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
Skyrim with guns? Awesome.

What do you mean by fake open world?

Hmm.

Like Witcher 2. Semi-open world but you're locked down to specific areas each chapter. Similar for Dragon Age: Inquisition. Not quite open world but has open world elements/areas.

Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
Do you decisions in-game affect the state of the world?

Absolutely. Doing a quest in one way may clear out deathclaws (enemies that will utterly destroy you at low levels no matter how good you are) in an area. Doing it in another may cause a human settlement to be destroyed but you get nice loot. Main quest decisions are probably the most world-changing.

Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
Since this is an rpg, is it class-based like typical RPG's, or is there more freedom to specialize, like in Skyrim?


Yes and yes. You can choose to be more scavenger, charismatic, pugilistic, hand gunny, rifley, bladey, and combinations thereof. I'm over simplifying it as there are more options and ways you can build your class as you level.

Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
Is there an absurb amount of grinding to carry out, or is it reasonable?

Almost no grind whatsoever. If you just play the side quests and main missions, you will level and find excellent equipment. And here's what is great about the equipment: NO RANDOM NUMBER GENERATION. If you want to play again and found that awesome sniper rifle in the camp at the end of the game, start a new game from the beginning, get that awesome sniper rifle, and have fund sniping throughout your whole play through. I hate randomly generated loot systems.


Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
So if I decide to play Fallout 4, is there any need to have played 3 and NV?

The only need I can see if simply to have had that adventure and become cultured if you consider yourself a serious gamer. As far as fun goes, you'll have fun in both so there is that bonus, too. I liked NV far more than Fallout 3.



Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
I'm not a graphics expert or anything, but from the videos I've seen of 3, those screenshots look a good deal better.
They don't look current gen though.

Based on my estimate, in the trailer, the graphics are too good for current gen consoles but not quite up to snuff on current gen PC games. Meaning, it would be middle of the road for a PC game in 2012-13.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Kind of. Yeah, they got Boston and the idea behind a voice character.

Here is a response to that post.

http://kotaku.com/latest-popular-fallout-4-rumor-sure-seems-like-bs-1709009561

Considering the two mains things (she said she worked there and released info to Kotaku) were completely off, it's bogus.

Also, according to Kotaku, a lot of that info was leaked before the post...

The only legitimate point that Kotaku author brought up was whether or not she leaked it to them. Her words do not indicate she leaked it directly to them. Here were her words on that:

"PS. I leaked some of the first Fallout 4 info by accident, and it ended up in the hands of Kotaku. Oops."

Also the console release thing is the only other marginally legit point. It is fully possible that development for 360 and PS3 were abandoned since a year ago.


The author seems more sore over the idea of competing news sources rather than having a legitimate claim that this potential former employee leaked info. I see it is butthurt and not a legit refutation.

Gender restriction? Probably because gender build had not been matured that far yet in development.


This guy goes through all of it to discredit her:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout4/comments/38hpig/an_analysis_of_the_famous_leak_and_why_i_think/

But what I see is she either:

1. Played and did work on an early version.
2. Lied and put together truth with as much truthful speculation as possible.



Regardless, the stuff about the engines seems correct as reviews of the trailer are showing the game to have to at least be run on a significantly updated engine.

Sorry for the triple post but...




Let's start complaining about still not being able to kill children in a Fallout game in anticipation of 4's release:


https://i.imgur.com/sm9yWNz.jpg








Also, please open this image and compare the compressed YouTube vid to the uncompressed one:

https://i.imgur.com/TGNU4dX.jpg


Clearly, the graphics/textures/details look much better in the uncompressed one.


Watch the nearly uncompressed trailer, here, on a 1080p monitor to get a feel for how good the graphics really are from the trailer:


http://www.gamersyde.com/download_fallout_4_trailer-34774_en.html

So the people finally get one of the most anticipated sequels and we're back to the graphics debacle. Never changes indeed. Fallout 3 was mostly grey and rusty brown and nobody complained about that at the time.

I certainly did. That's my chief problem with the games actually. I felt there wasn't enough variety in the environment.

Wx6UdrZ1nhM

Relevant?

Originally posted by ares834
I certainly did. That's my chief problem with the games actually. I felt there wasn't enough variety in the environment.

In most cases, I would agree but Fallout 3 is based in a nuclear wasteland....what type of environments do you think they can do?

I thought Fallout 3 has a nice blend of open areas filled with interesting areas to explore and a huge downtown area that is different than outlaying areas.

Originally posted by Smasandian
In most cases, I would agree but Fallout 3 is based in a nuclear wasteland....what type of environments do you think they can do?

I was going to post this but figured people are entitled to their opinion.

But, yeah, you shouldn't expect environmental variety in a nuclear wasteland.


But there were caves, glowing flora, suburban areas, downtown areas (which included actual locales from Washington DC...which was awesome), subways, and water areas. Plenty of variety. Just not much flora or fauna. I think that's what areas wasn't feeling.

Yes, the have a ****ing aircraft carrier for a town and a town built around a nuclear weapon.....

Also, tons of unique areas to explore. This came out in 2008, before the apocalypse setting became popular so seeing a run down grocery store was pretty damn cool. Hell, each vault has a unique theme to it so they don't all feel the same.

It's been 200 years later, the wasteland shouldn't actually really be all that "nuclear" anymore; there's plenty of stuff Bethesda could do with the rebuilding of society aspect of Fallout that's present in basically every game but 3.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
It's been 200 years later, the wasteland shouldn't actually really be all that "nuclear" anymore

You're very much correct. In Fallout 3, they try to "science" that with there being tons of nuclear waste stored in the area: underground and above ground. So it is supposedly constantly spilling into the area and water.


You can see how that's not really the case in NV in many areas: wide open spaces with no radiation (same in F3, really...just seems to be more radiation in F3).

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
there's plenty of stuff Bethesda could do with the rebuilding of society aspect of Fallout that's present in basically every game but 3.

I can't really disagree. Megaton is a pretty cool town that contradicts your statement, imo. Well, there are probably 2 or 3 other settlements that contradict you. But those are exceptions, not the rule. I think you're statement is still largely accurate of F3.

In the end, as long as the developers are consistent throughout the game, I'm happy.

The game portrays the setting of being bleak and wastland-ish through its graphics, story, characters dialogue and other things so even if the science behind the game is kind of suspect (which I don't know anything about) within the game, it makes sense.

I'm playing the game again for the third time and it's still pretty fun. The mystique is obviously gone and I don't really care about learning the areas like I did during previous playthroughs but I'm exicited to play the DLC that I never got too.

The series is called Fallout. What else would it be like but bleak and wastland-ish?

When this game is released, I will see you all in the vault.

He made the 111th post. Time Immemorial confirmed for Fallout 4 protagonist.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
He made the 111th post. Time Immemorial confirmed for Fallout 4 protagonist.

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/mediawiki/apis.ign.com/fallout-4/thumb/7/74/Falloutimg1b.jpg/468px-Falloutimg1b.jpg

Voice Acting sucks

Comes out this year Nov, 10!

Game looks pretty damn good. I'm excited as hell now.

0F1CIojAGxA

Looks like we are going to get what we wanted out of this game (improvements and changing how it plays and not just a huge New Vegas expansion).


Here are things that are better/different:

1. Settlement building like the game Rust.
2. Minecraft-like device building (turrets, lights, etc.).
3. Pip Boy Application.
4. Layered armor systems.
5. An in depth weapons and armor crafting system (50 base weapons with 700 different modifications that can be made: an absurd amount of possibilities/combinations).
6. A scrapping system where you can just collect scrap and use it to craft weapons, armor, or settlements.
7. Main character voice acting (sorry, I don't like silent main characters.).
8. Yes, you can play as a female character.
9. Offspring that looks like a combination of the parents (they have a nice little algorithm that combines the features/traits of both parents and makes a baby that looks like both of you...pretty cool).
10. Pip Boy mini-games. Kind of like an NES on your wrist. Yes, you can pause the real world and play a mini game on your pip boy. Nothing new for a game but a fun little distraction.
11. Real-world pip-boy. This...I don't even know. You put your phone into the real pip-boy. The phone has an app installed for the game. And you use the pip boy like you would in the game. Seriously. I don't even know how to explain this properly. You don't need the pip boy that comes with the special edition: you can still use your smart phone separately as your in-game pip boy...which is great. The pip boy watch is just there for hardcore folks. I won't get the pip boy but I will use the app.


Watch this:

H86cZwjdGwU


Here's a huge 16 minute gameplay trailer/demo:

EiV-t3F0i-Q



Ushgarak, are these types of updates more what you were looking for/wanted? I think it is a step in the direction you wanted. I'm just not sure this is everything that you desired.















Edit - I should note that they are using a new engine for this game. The characters still look a bit cartoony/blocky, though. So does the dog. Hell, the Deathclaw seems to be more worked on than the clothes. Not sure why. Is that a style choice?

Not sure why playing as a female is a big deal, You could do that in Fallout 3.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Not sure why playing as a female is a big deal, You could do that in Fallout 3.

Because a seemingly very credible source said you could only play as male. That was the big rumor that people were worried about.

He was basically squashing that rumor and that's why people cheered when he said it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I should note that they are using a new engine for this game. The characters still look a bit cartoony/blocky, though. So does the dog.

Eh. If the style was alright in Bioshock Infinite, it's alright in Fallout. I personally don't mind it.

Yeah, I don't either.

Fallout 4 looks really good. I'm excited to see if the game lives up to it. I also enjoy the settlement aspect of the game because I've always dreamed of a game doing so. It even looks like the element is completely open and not half strung like othere games. For example, State of Decay allows you to run a settlement but in reality, the only thing you do is create generic parts of it without any individuality of it.

It's nice that you can create a settlement completely unique in its look and function. I think that was a wise move. Also, adding the ability that raiders and such can attack the settlement is pretty sweet because I could spend hours creating a defensive system to do so.

I hope though that the weapon customization does not limit the game from having those sweet amazing weapons you can find throughout the world. While it is nice to be able to customize but sometimes that could ruin the feel of the game because why would ever need to look for weapons if you can create something much more powerful. One of the joys of Fallout 3 is that I got excited when I found a regular shotgun. It made sense because the world was destroyed so there is no way a company is making more of them.

For instance, Dead Space 3 had customized weapons extremely similar to what Fallout 4 is doing and it kind of ruined what Dead Space was good at. The plasma cutter is one of the best weapon in any game and having the ability to but a ****ing shotgun underneath kind of ruined that feeling when you used it.

But still, in the end, this game looks pretty damn sweet.

I'm disappointed at the inclusion of voice acting, as I find this usually limits the actual role-playing side of games. Kind of confirming my fears are the Mass Effect style "Four dialogue options voiced by Troy Baker".

Everything else looks more or less good though, I'm especially impressed by what they've done with Power Armor and how it actually looks and functions like Power Armor should. It always kind of bugged me in 3 and NV that they were basically just suits of armor where in 1 and 2 it was a big power boost on your character when you got it.

Also pretty glad to see we're getting the Elder Scrolls style armor system now.

Not sure if I care enough about the voice acting. Will it provide a more immersive story because of voice acting? Maybe. If so then I'm all for it.

With voice acting, the dialogue made by the character's low intelligence would be hilarious.

The problem I have with voice acting when it comes to dialogue options is the frequent change in tone to what the actual text selected was.

Sometimes I'll choose to say something like "That doesn't add up"

and the voice actor will say "YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE, EXPLAIN YOURSELF OR ELSE"

Originally posted by Quincy
The problem I have with voice acting when it comes to dialogue options is the frequent change in tone to what the actual text selected was.

Sometimes I'll choose to say something like "That doesn't add up"

and the voice actor will say "YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE, EXPLAIN YOURSELF OR ELSE"

That was a problem in the Mass Effect series, imo. I am sure that issue popped up in other RPGs like that but I distinctly remember shit like that happening a bit too often in Mass Effect. IIRC, ME2 or 3 fixed that. You had clear paragon and renegade choices so you didn't get stuck selecting the *sshole answer.













But onwards to the voice acting. Why do people like the silent main character type in RPGs? I don't. To me, it doesn't work. Feels more like a gimmick that actually doesn't add anything to the experience. It was "cool" when I was 8. But now that I'm older, I want more mature story telling. Can't just rely on a "cool silent" main character in order to do that. You need dialogue and soliloquy to pull it off. A silent main character is lazy writing, imo. It is up there with "The main character has amnesia and, totes my gotes, the past is shrouded in mystery!"

Because **** Troy Baker

Troy voiced Joel in Last of Us and then Joker in Arkham Origins right? He seems decent enough.

Troy Baker voices everybody, that's the problem.

Fan preorders Fallout 4 with bottle caps.



haermm

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was a problem in the Mass Effect series, imo. I am sure that issue popped up in other RPGs like that but I distinctly remember shit like that happening a bit too often in Mass Effect. IIRC, ME2 or 3 fixed that. You had clear paragon and renegade choices so you didn't get stuck selecting the *sshole answer.













But onwards to the voice acting. Why do people like the silent main character type in RPGs? I don't. To me, it doesn't work. Feels more like a gimmick that actually doesn't add anything to the experience. It was "cool" when I was 8. But now that I'm older, I want more mature story telling. Can't just rely on a "cool silent" main character in order to do that. You need dialogue and soliloquy to pull it off. A silent main character is lazy writing, imo. It is up there with "The main character has amnesia and, totes my gotes, the past is shrouded in mystery!"

Well many rpgs have a non voiced protagonist who still talks, which is what I figured people wanted. Since voiced characters tend to have less dialogue options and the tend to be more general as a result, not always but generally the more nuanced dialogue chains and itneractions come from games with limited voice acting.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But onwards to the voice acting. Why do people like the silent main character type in RPGs? I don't. To me, it doesn't work. Feels more like a gimmick that actually doesn't add anything to the experience. It was "cool" when I was 8. But now that I'm older, I want more mature story telling. Can't just rely on a "cool silent" main character in order to do that. You need dialogue and soliloquy to pull it off. A silent main character is lazy writing, imo. It is up there with "The main character has amnesia and, totes my gotes, the past is shrouded in mystery!" The protagonists in Fallout games were only "silent" in the sense that they weren't voice-acted. They still had dialogue that you could choose, and there was greater variety in what kind of dialogue choices you had than in, say, Mass Effect.

People are afraid to lose that.

Greater variety? Hah!

I don't believe that. I'm currently playing Fallout 3 and you don't really get a ton of voice options at once. Most times, they open other conversation options. Occassionally you get more than 4 options to choose from but they were really any different and it didn't really affect how the conversation went.

At times, in Mass Effect, you had 8 different dialogue choices to choose from which is roughly the same amount you get in Fallout 3.

Yeah it's almost like Fallout 3 is the worst Fallout when it comes to roleplaying.

Also that's basically a lie, Mass Effect usually gives you 3 responses, and occasionally 5, questions aren't responses.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I don't believe that. I'm currently playing Fallout 3 and you don't really get a ton of voice options at once. Most times, they open other conversation options. Occassionally you get more than 4 options to choose from but they were really any different and it didn't really affect how the conversation went.

At times, in Mass Effect, you had 8 different dialogue choices to choose from which is roughly the same amount you get in Fallout 3. "What can you tell me about the Reapers?" is not a real conversation option because it doesn't actually progress the conversation. You can mindlessly ask the questions over and over again, making the conversation flow less organically.

Fallout 3 was relatively weak in this regard, but New Vegas was pretty good for it. Hell, if your character had low intelligence he even spoke more simply to demonstrate that fact, and had the occasional intelligence check that you actually needed low intelligence to pass.

Mass Effect only had two different "stats" (paragon and renegade) that could open new dialogue options. Fallout, even 3, had many.

Now, I'm not saying 4 won't have those features, it very well might, but we haven't seen any evidence of that yet, and I'm just relaying the fears voice acting gives people.

http://i57.tinypic.com/eugc4i.jpg

I don't see any skills...

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
http://i57.tinypic.com/eugc4i.jpg

I don't see any skills...

Oh, wow... ****. Agility: 1? An idle motor resting on cinder blocks could outrun him. haermm

It actually looks like we'll have lower stats this time. I'm pretty sure you can at best get 4 in almost every stat.

If anyone was worried about Troy Baker, fear not as it's been mentioned a Brian T. Delaney will be voicing the male and Courtenay Taylor the female protagonist. We're getting Jack from Mass Effect. Fitting.

I'm playing New Vegas to get in tone. I hope this game has that 'massive' feeling 3/NV have.

Good development. I will buy this game.

Yuo7AuDGNN8

Vw21X2jKwCM

paYU1neP3xM

vsFpH4jm-QI

Took some time off to play this game. ****ing hope it's good!

Anyone know yet if the Mass Effect wheel has completely neutered the speech, terrifying presence, lady/man killer dialogue options? I love those.

Not sure. I guess they will wait for reviews.

Oh wait you can see the Lady Killer perk in the Character System trailer so that pretty much confirms it. Derp.

What video is that?