Fallout 4 - news & rumours

[WDeranged]

I think it's probably time to give this a thread what with all the rumours and the fact that Obsidian have a deep connection with the franchise

 

Take it all with a pinch of salt but...

 

http://www.oxm.co.uk...erpunk-setting/

 

"Former Obsidian developers said to be working on project"

 

"alleges that it will adopt certain RPG mechanics from Skyrim."

 

 

- First and foremost, the game will take place in Boston, and be kind of a direct sequel to Fallout 3 with a few groups returning.

 

- From what it sounds like, "The Institute" is pretty much the downtown DC or New Vegas of this game. Boston is going to be unlike anything we've seen in a Fallout game before, with buildings more on par with cyberpunk and retro-futurism.

 

- Androids play a big part in this game. The railroad from Fallout 3 is a faction. The enemies of the railroad is "the Plantation" -- a group who force Androids to farm so that Humans can get food. The Institute is highly advanced and probably obtained or built their own GECK to start a farm.

 

- Due to complaints about using Super Mutants and the Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout 3 excessively and going against the lore too much, Bethesda has decided to avoid using these groups. Bethesda wants to make a new "race" (think Ghoul, Super Mutant) which will be central to Boston. Bethesda is currently looking at Lovecraftian fiction since Boston is around "Lovecraft Country".

 

- Bethesda has no plans to reinvent the leveling up system to make it more like Skyrim and want to make Fallout 4 more distinct from Skyrim since of the complaints that Oblivion and Fallout 3 were too similar. Bethesda is thinking about introducing a system, similar to Skyrim, where your skills can level up if you perform certain tasks.

Edited January 12, 2013 by WDeranged

[grotbag]

Perhaps it's asking too much of a really dreadful tone-deaf Blade Runner reference, but I'd like to question the common sense of an advanced post-apocalyptic society spending their time obsessively creating and managing anatomically-perfect human-replica androids with adult-level artificial intelligence to perform basic manual tasks for no particular reason.

Edited January 12, 2013 by grotbag

[Tigranes]

Meh. I'll start caring when I hear of some major changes from FO3. I like the direction of stop beating the dead horse and actually make some new contributions to the setting, but remains to be seen whether it'll be any good.

 

Lovecraftian is always good.

[C2B]

Weren't these rumors declared to be bull**** today?

 

Though, on the former Obsidian developers front there is actually a good chance that Ferret Baudoin is working on it. He didn't work on New Vegas though, but was working on Van Buren.

Edited January 12, 2013 by C2B

[WorstUsernameEver]

I'm fairly sure the bulletpoint stuff was taken from a Reddit thread. Dunno where the Obsidian stuff comes from, though C2B already mentioned Ferret Badouin which I guess lends +0.5 credibility to it.

[Oerwinde]

Most of that made me not very optimistic about it if its true. Adding a "learn by doing" skill system to Fallout would make me angry. Lovecraftian beings, unless they're some sort of genetically modified creature doesn't sound awesome. I like the idea of having the architecture of the ruined buildings having a more retro-futurist feel rather than just recognizable landmarks.

[AGX-17]

- From what it sounds like, "The Institute" is pretty much the downtown DC or New Vegas of this game.

 

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Its campus is not the size of a city, much less the size of a metropolitan area.

 

 

Most of that made me not very optimistic about it if its true. Adding a "learn by doing" skill system to Fallout would make me angry. Lovecraftian beings, unless they're some sort of genetically modified creature doesn't sound awesome. I like the idea of having the architecture of the ruined buildings having a more retro-futurist feel rather than just recognizable landmarks.

 

Yeah, I hope this is baseless BS, especially this "fans complained that fallout 3 is too much like oblivion so let's make fallout 4 more like oblivion" thing, that just flat out contradicts reality.

 

And the Lovecraft stuff was completely out-of-place in F3 unless you view it as a non-canon easter egg like most of the special encounters in F1 and 2, but Bethesda pretty much shot that down with Point Lookout, further reinforcing all the misgivings I have about Bethesda's further installments of Fallout.

Edited January 13, 2013 by AGX-17

[Lysen]

Bethesda has no plans to reinvent the leveling up system to make it more like Skyrim and want to make Fallout 4 more distinct from Skyrim since of the complaints that Oblivion and Fallout 3 were too similar. Bethesda is thinking about introducing a system, similar to Skyrim, where your skills can level up if you perform certain tasks.

 

Hopefully, this is just a rumour.

[Gorgon]

lol back to rabbit jumping and sneaking everywhere.

[Lexx]

Weren't these rumors declared to be bull**** today?

 

Yup. But I found it quite obvious to be a fake even before.

[HoonDing]

Fallout 4 will be next-gen.

[AGX-17]

Fallout 4 will be next-gen.

 

Kind of obvious.

[TSBasilisk]

Next-gen is so last-gen; I heard Fallout 4 will be after-next-gen.

[Chilloutman]

Unless its turn based and isometric I am not interested. I am so disapointed with Fallout Tactic. So great engine, combat was most fun from all fallouts. Sad that story was so ****ty. I always hoped that someone will make F1 and F2 or new story in that engine. So sad. Do someone know who owns right for that?

[BruceVC]

Unless its turn based and isometric I am not interested. I am so disapointed with Fallout Tactic. So great engine, combat was most fun from all fallouts. Sad that story was so ****ty. I always hoped that someone will make F1 and F2 or new story in that engine. So sad. Do someone know who owns right for that?

 

Are you telling me you didn't enjoy Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas?

Seriously now

[WorstUsernameEver]

Unless its turn based and isometric I am not interested. I am so disapointed with Fallout Tactic. So great engine, combat was most fun from all fallouts. Sad that story was so ****ty. I always hoped that someone will make F1 and F2 or new story in that engine. So sad. Do someone know who owns right for that?

 

Are you telling me you didn't enjoy Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas?

Seriously now

 

What's so weird about not enjoying those games? I liked them, but there certainly are plenty of arguments to be made against them.

[BruceVC]

Unless its turn based and isometric I am not interested. I am so disapointed with Fallout Tactic. So great engine, combat was most fun from all fallouts. Sad that story was so ****ty. I always hoped that someone will make F1 and F2 or new story in that engine. So sad. Do someone know who owns right for that?

 

Are you telling me you didn't enjoy Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas?

Seriously now

 

What's so weird about not enjoying those games? I liked them, but there certainly are plenty of arguments to be made against them.

 

Whats I find strange is there is a difference between saying you had issues with a game and saying that you are completely opposed to core game design, in other words saying you only want another Fallout if its isometric and turn-based means you want a complete paradigm shift with future games from Bethesda. And thats not going to happen.

[Chilloutman]

I never told that its gonna happend. And yes I didnt enjoyed F3, I heard that New Vegas is better, but still most things which bothers me were with engine and crappy design.

[rftl]

 

Whats I find strange is there is a difference between saying you had issues with a game and saying that you are completely opposed to core game design,

 

With this argument you actually have to hate F3 and F:NW and only accept Turn Based Isometric Fallout games.

 

Because to use your words. They are completely opposed to Fallouts core game design.

 

-----

 

For me the greatest problem with Fallout 3 and probably with Fallout 4.

 

Is that the traditional strongest points of the Fallout Franchise, are the traditional weakest points of pretty much every Bethesda RPG.

 

Fallout Games traditionally a big world with a limited amount of things to do (at least compared to Bethesda type RPG). But not as cramped an Focused as BioWar RPGs.

 

But often those Storys and experiences are very character driven deep Storys. Even small interludes and mini quests feel as if the have a meaning for the word or the people that are involved.

 

Bethesda rpgs feel more like a canvas in witch the player can forge his own experience.

 

They ave an enormous amount of things to do. But they are mostly experiences that get their meaning becaus you are involved.

 

Both kinds of RPG have it's place.

 

The traditional Fallout Games gives you a big chance to experience storys und the people in the world.

 

While the Bethesda kind gives you the chance, to forge and experience your own story. The world / story is more like a backdrop for this experience.

 

 

 

Fallout 1,2 and New Vegas are somewhere in the middle, between the more Focused and Cinematic BioWare RPGs and the very big World Bethesda RPGs.

 

The thing is. You can get high quality BioWare and Bethesda type RPGs, in regular intervals.

Traditional Fallout type RPGs on the other hand, are pretty scare.

Obsidian has the skill to make games like this. But unlike BioWare and Bethesda, they don't have a comfortable market niche.

In with they can make those games over and over again.

[BruceVC]

Whats I find strange is there is a difference between saying you had issues with a game and saying that you are completely opposed to core game design,

 

With this argument you actually have to hate F3 and F:NW and only accept Turn Based Isometric Fallout games.

 

Because to use your words. They are completely opposed to Fallouts core game design.

 

-----

 

For me the greatest problem with Fallout 3 and probably with Fallout 4.

 

Is that the traditional strongest points of the Fallout Franchise, are the traditional weakest points of pretty much every Bethesda RPG.

 

Fallout Games traditionally a big world with a limited amount of things to do (at least compared to Bethesda type RPG). But not as cramped an Focused as BioWar RPGs.

 

But often those Storys and experiences are very character driven deep Storys. Even small interludes and mini quests feel as if the have a meaning for the word or the people that are involved.

 

Bethesda rpgs feel more like a canvas in witch the player can forge his own experience.

 

They ave an enormous amount of things to do. But they are mostly experiences that get their meaning becaus you are involved.

 

Both kinds of RPG have it's place.

 

The traditional Fallout Games gives you a big chance to experience storys und the people in the world.

 

While the Bethesda kind gives you the chance, to forge and experience your own story. The world / story is more like a backdrop for this experience.

 

 

 

Fallout 1,2 and New Vegas are somewhere in the middle, between the more Focused and Cinematic BioWare RPGs and the very big World Bethesda RPGs.

 

The thing is. You can get high quality BioWare and Bethesda type RPGs, in regular intervals.

Traditional Fallout type RPGs on the other hand, are pretty scare.

Obsidian has the skill to make games like this. But unlike BioWare and Bethesda, they don't have a comfortable market niche.

In with they can make those games over and over again.

 

I never played Fallout 1&2 so I can't comment. I also think that my point is being misunderstood. I love turn based, isometric games but to say you don't like Fallout and F:NV because they aren't turn based, isometric games doesn't make sense to me. It would be like saying you don't like Risen, Gothic or Morrowind because they aren't turn based and isometric. They aren't suppose to be yet the games have a huge appeal.

 

Saying that I am very excited about the KS games coming out that will be isometric and turn based, like Wasteland 2 and PE.

[Chilloutman]

Gothic 1 was great. Its not I dont like other types of games as well but for me it doesnt feal right. Gothic was great that it makes sense how limited world was. On other hand only 1 brahmin for whole city (consisting 10 characters) and village (consisting 5 characters) constantly under abuse of supermutant camp behinde hill with bazookas just feels ... crap. That engine (F3) is just not supposed to be used to create wastelands and/or big post-apo cities

[WorstUsernameEver]

 

I never played Fallout 1&2 so I can't comment. I also think that my point is being misunderstood. I love turn based, isometric games but to say you don't like Fallout and F:NV because they aren't turn based, isometric games doesn't make sense to me. It would be like saying you don't like Risen, Gothic or Morrowind because they aren't turn based and isometric. They aren't suppose to be yet the games have a huge appeal.

 

Not really. It would be more akin to a TES fan saying he or she doesn't want to play another game in the series because it's a turn-based title. Or an MMO. And actually, turns out I've seen it happen!

[BruceVC]

Gothic 1 was great. Its not I dont like other types of games as well but for me it doesnt feal right. Gothic was great that it makes sense how limited world was. On other hand only 1 brahmin for whole city (consisting 10 characters) and village (consisting 5 characters) constantly under abuse of supermutant camp behinde hill with bazookas just feels ... crap. That engine (F3) is just not supposed to be used to create wastelands and/or big post-apo cities

 

Okay I see what you are saying, I guess we can agree to disagree

Edited January 14, 2013 by BruceVC

[grotbag]

but to say you don't like Fallout and F:NV because they aren't turn based, isometric games doesn't make sense to me. It would be like saying you don't like Risen, Gothic or Morrowind because they aren't turn based and isometric. They aren't suppose to be yet the games have a huge appeal.

 

That doesn't really follow, though. Expressing the desire for the series to go back to its earlier incarnation doesn't mean that you have a chauvinistic inability to enjoy any games that aren't turn-based or isometric, just that the essence of what you admired in these particular games has been lost, weakened or mismanaged by the franchise's transition from turn-based RPG to Bethesda-typical open-world game.

Edited January 14, 2013 by grotbag

[rftl]

I never played Fallout 1&2 so I can't comment. I also think that my point is being misunderstood. I love turn based, isometric games but to say you don't like Fallout and F:NV because they aren't turn based, isometric games doesn't make sense to me. It would be like saying you don't like Risen, Gothic or Morrowind because they aren't turn based and isometric. They aren't suppose to be yet the games have a huge appeal.

 

No it's not the same because Risen, Gothic or Morrowind where never Turn Based.

 

But to use your on example (The TES Series).

 

Big Announcement from Bethesda.

 

The Elderscrolls VI: Summerset

 

New game Facts:

 

Top Down Turn Based Combat.

5x5 square miles map with one village.

Communicating in sign language.

And it's set in the late stone age.

 

Oh and there will be never ever again a traditional TES Style.

 

Du you really think TES Fans would be cool with this?

Even if it's a very good game. The fans would scream BETRAYAL.

 

And that's exactly happend with Fallout 3. People call it Oblivion with guns.

That's actually a good description. And if you look at it this way. Then it's pretty good.

I would even argue that it's way better than Oblivion.

 

But it's a very poor Fallout game.

 

The Obsidian Spinnoff Fallout: New Vegas has at least some of the Spirit of a real Fallout.

But it's bound to many F3 design decisions.

 

I'm sure if New Vegas had been the first ne Fallout and the Series Main game.

Most classic Fallout Fans would not be as negative to a TES Like spinnoff.

 

Some would not like it because it's not turn based and not isometric.

But at least it would be seen as a new interpretation of Fallout.

And not as a different game with a Fallout coat of paint.

 

It's like XCom.

Most XCom Fans hated that it's looked as if the Series would be changed to a FPS Franchise.

 

Then the Turn Based XCom came out. Yes it was different. Yes it hat it's problems and was even a bit dumbed down.

And yes some fans did not like it because the lack of tactical depth.

 

But the outrage stopped. When it's time for the FPS game, most Fans won't be screaming.

Some will even test the FPS because they feel that XCom is safe.

 

Fallout Fans on the other hand know that the License is in the hand of a company with a very different design philosophy.

They feel that Fallout is dead an someone is mocking it.

Everytime Bethesda does something different from the old games.

The Fans will react very negatively (even if the game itself is good).

Edited January 14, 2013 by rftl