Fallout 4 is coming!

[WorstUsernameEver]

The only thing I really like so far is that power armor finally looks like power armor. It's huge and bulky and you seem to feel it. Not this paper knight armor like in Fo3. Though, I am worried that it will be nothing but a timed super power, going by the gameplay video, where the player first puts in some kind of energy source before it opens and can be used.

I genuinely don't mind this. It's a way of making power armor feel like it should based on the fiction while also balancing gameplay, and depending on how it's implemented it could be very fun. Short moments that make you feel like you're really awesome interrupted by a power failing? That sounds like something that dovetails nicely into the setting to me.

[Malcador]

a little reminder of those fallout 2 and 3 days

http://www.somethingawful.com/weekend-web/fallout-scarleteen-armenianclub/1/

Did someone from NMA molest you ?

[Amentep]

 

I hate-hate-hated the timers in both Fallout and Fallout 2.  And you could stop both timers - provided you rushed to get to the point where you could stop the timer, at which point you could lazily do the open world exploration.  But a railroad is a railroad, if you didn't do what the game designers wanted you to do in the time they wanted you to do it - end of game.

 

Been awhile since I played Fallout 3 but IIRC your choices affect Megaton, Little Lamplight and the other town connected to it and the high rise with the ghoul problem.  The main story is a narrative railroad (one that they never quite justify following, IMO).  New Vegas gives more main story narrative choices (even if only an idiot would ever join Ceasar).

Firstly, a timer is not a railroad. A railroad is what it implies, a forced progression of A->B->C where you have no choice in the matter whatever. Gameplay wise it tends towards linear corridors or the actual rail shooter, narrative wise it's a non branching story. While the waterchip is effectively a choke point decision you have a wide range of different approaches prior to that. If you take that as a railroad then any narrated game is a railroad except ones with an emergent narrative- BG2 has a 'railroad' where you need to raise money and have to go to Spellhold even if you hate Imoen, Planetscape: Tournament you have to go after Ravel who has to die, Awesome Brotocols you have to return to the AP base at the end, Ultima But Thou Must, VTMB LaCroix forces you to obey him etc etc. None of them are actual railroad narratives though, they are just points at which the narrative meanders rejoin into the main stream; something with an actual railroad narrative would be, say, FEAR because every time you play it it has an identical, linear progression where the only choice is to progress in a predetermined manner, or stand still permanently, or quit.

 

 

If the narrative forces you into a specific choice or narrative path, it railroads you. I would agree that all of your listed choices are railroads. The difference (and the reason I think Fallout 1's railroad is "bad") is the game fails if you don't follow the railroad in the time the developers set out for you to complete it.  As I mentioned it is my memory that FO2 fails if you allow the village to die too soon (before their capture is triggered by you arriving in a particular point in the main quest) - if that's not the case, then I remove my objection to that particular game's narrative.  But you can't get around the fact that Fallout 1 gets "game over" if you don't complete the waterchip quest in the time allowed - the game forces you to do a specific action in a specific way - you have to save the vault and you have to save it by a specific time.

 

The argument is the timer adds verisimilitude.  This maybe so (but the game is broken of verisimilitude on so many other points, it seems weird to care about this one).  But it also fails to address that a player has to do specific actions by a specific time. Let me put it this way, one of the big complaints I recall reading about FO3 when it came out is that you have to care about finding your father.  You can't play a character who hates their father for abandoning you and hates him for being forced to leave the vault and doesn't give a **** if he dies in the wasteland.  Very similarly, in Fallout 1, you cannot play a character who doesn't give a **** about the vault that sent you out into the forbidden wasteland because the powers that be couldn't be arsed to get off their backside and solve the problem themselves.  But unlike Fallout 3 where you can ignore "dear ol' dad" until you literally have nothing else to do in the Wasteland from a narrative perspective, you HAVE to solve the water problem or the game ends.

 

Note, it is my opinion that all computer RPGs - by necessity - will railroad you. P&P RPGs are the only way to have (potentially) a RPG without narrative railroading. With games, there's a limited amount of time/space to implement, so at some point you have to engage the game in a way that the game requires you to engage it.  Railroads in and of themselves aren't bad.  Railroads in RPGs that will end your game if you don't do exactly what the dev wants when they want you to do it - that's bad (IMO).  Railroads that don't offer an illusion of choice that seems to validate the character you've created inherently (IMO again) violate the spirit of the kind of RPG that Fallout wants to be.

 

Secondly, the main reason why F1 and F2 have better narratives than F3 is not just because F3's story makes no sense and is an illogical mess of cliché and what Bethesda thought would be cool- the main plot in F1 and F2 certainly has elements of cliché and what would be cool itself after all- it is that every town has a story which is at least reasonably well thought out and internally consistent; F3's in contrast are almost all theme parks with one problem that can usually be solved in an utterly trivial manner.

 

Not sure I agree with the distinction you're making; other than F1 and F2 having larger quest hub areas (thus having more quests and more ways to complete a quest), I don't see FO3's story as being more/less cliché than the others others (find the waterchip to save the vault, find the GECK to save the village, find dad - who incidently is working on a real-world waterchip to save the Capital Wasteland more or less mirroring FO1).  I accept that an isometric world with city hubs and an overland map will probably have a higher quest density than a 3D world that features a continuous environment.

 

Edited June 18, 2015 by Amentep

[WDeranged]

Does that look like he's holding Oblivion game box to anyone else? Like he's going to get his Oblivion game box autographed? Please say it isn't so, please.

 

Nah.

[macs-savchenko]

Dear developers could you do such system requirements here:amd E-1500 APU with Redeon HD Graphics 1.48 GHz,4 gb,32-bit thanks in advance.

[sorophx]

I doubt Bethesda's staff hangs around these forums. 

 

or is that request aimed at a possible Obsidian follow-up to Fallout 4? 

[Malcador]

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/fallout_4/b/playstation4/archive/2015/06/17/19-new-details-fans-need-to-know-about-fallout-4.aspx

• Fallout 4 is the most detailed, dense environment Bethesda has made to date. The world has so much content even game director Todd Howard hasn't seen everything in the game. 
• The extra graphical horsepower provided by the new console gave the team a tech backbone to iterate on its Creation engine and add more dynamic details. Physics-based rendering and volumetric lighting help create more atmosphere in the world, opening the game up to more environmental storytelling.
• Fallout 4's narrative has a lot more branching paths and overlapping of "if that than this" than Fallout 3. They want the game to handle all the fail states of missions instead of forcing players to reload saves.
• Boston and its surrounding regions offer more varied, vivid colors than Fallout 3, though the color palate still relies heavily on grays and browns in the blast zone where the nuke was detonated.
• Fallout 4 has a full weather system that sends radiation storms across the world.  
• Bethesda has always valued player freedom above storytelling, but with Fallout 4 the team wants to bring more emotional resonance to the plot thread running through the game. This is why they chose to recruit voice actors for both the female and male protagonists the player can make their own. 
• Combat is receiving a major stimpak thanks to some consulting with id Software to improve the second-to-second shooting. Bethesda's goal? To have the shooting stand shoulder to shoulder with the other great options on the market. The studio even hired away some Bungie talent to help with this remodel. With the new, built-from-scratch shooting system, Howard says Fallout 4 plays much more like a modern shooter. You can aim down the sights, use V.A.T.S., and play in first or third person. 
• V.A.T.S. has received some slight overhauls. It no longer completely pauses the action, and critical shots are no longer random. If you look at the videos, you'll notice a "critical" bar on the bottom of the screen that the player fills. Once it is fully filled you can decide when to use it. Your luck skill determines how fast the bar increases, and there are perks that dig into how criticals work and how you use them.

• Bethesda is tweaking the way auto-scaling works for Fallout 4 to create more challenge. "We call it rubberbanding; we'll have an area [where enemies scale from] level 5 to 10, and then this area will be level 30 and above," Howard says. "You'll run into stuff that will crush you, and you will have to run away."
• Bethesda's proprietary Radient A.I. and story system are also being used for your settlements to drive random encounters. It will determine if someone should be sent to your town, if raiders should attack the settlement or abduct your caravan, etc.
• People will come to your settlement on their own but there are also others you can recruit.
• A list of your settlements will appear in your PipBoy. You can send caravans between the various bases to get your supplies where you want them to be.
• As you could see in the trailer, Fallout 4 introduces new modes of transportation in the form of the gunship, but Howard says they aren't doing cars or anything as well.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Malcador

[Chilloutman]

• Combat is receiving a major stimpak thanks to some consulting with id Software to improve the second-to-second shooting. Bethesda's goal? To have the shooting stand shoulder to shoulder with the other great options on the market. The studio even hired away some Bungie talent to help with this remodel. With the new, built-from-scratch shooting system, Howard says Fallout 4 plays much more like a modern shooter. You can aim down the sights, use V.A.T.S., and play in first or third person. 

 

Yeah thats pretty much why majority of F1/2 game hate Bethesda

[Valmy]

Sad that a majority are such psychos as to hate game developers.

 

Though I very much doubt anywhere close to a majority hate Bethesda. You might wish they did.

 

We got New Vegas out of FO3 maybe something great comes out of this as well. We shall see.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Valmy

[Amentep]

I think he's saying "why [the] majority of F1/F2 game [fans] hate Bethesda".

 

Not sure if that's accurate, or just representing the most vocal group.

[Malcador]

Think it's the kind of hate people have for a rival sports team, rather than any serious "I will immolate them and their families" kind.

[Lexx]

I don't really think that's true. I mean, it's certainly a part of it, but at least I personally accepted that Fallout is never going back to Fo1/2 gameplay anymore. FNV shows that you can still make a great Fallout game. It's just that Bethesda sucks at everything I personally want in a Fallout game. That's a good branching story, well written characters and quests, no silly stupid stuff (or at least make it possible to deactivate that) and a coherent, working, believable game world (within the boundaries of the Fallout world and the already existing lore).

 

Fallout is a shooter game now, so making it play like a good shooter is acceptable (FNV is a much better shooter already than Fo3. The gunplay in Fo3 is pure crap).

 

 

Oh, and I absolutely hate how Bethesda has to reinvent everything all the time. Like, instead of adding the original cool weapons to Fo3, they had to reinvent *everything* and give it the same name. Combat Shotgun in Fo1/2 == super awesome. Combat Shotgun in Fo3 == lelwhat. Stuff like this is what I simply can't understand and won't accept.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Lexx

[Chilloutman]

Is there some good shooter which is at same time good RPG?

[Malcador]

Alpha Protocol.

 

 

 

[Lexx]

If I tell you there is none right now, does that mean it is impossible for one to exist at some point?

 

 

(First Person) RPGs don't need to have crappy combat and truth told, if combat in Fallout 4 will feel like in Rage, then that's actually good news.

[HoonDing]

"The world has so much content even game director Todd Howard hasn't seen everything in the game. "

 

So the game might have some good things after all.

 

[Lexx]

I would say it's a really bad thing if the game director doesn't know his game. :>

[WorstUsernameEver]

I would say it's a really bad thing if the game director doesn't know his game. :>

Eh, I know it's just a cheap jab, but in a game like Skyrim or Fallout 3 it's pretty understandable. Way too much content to take a top-heavy approach. I'd be pretty surprised to learn that Josh Sawyer was familiar with *all* the content of Fallout: New Vegas prior to release, including the smallest areas and log entries.

[213374U]

 

• Combat is receiving a major stimpak thanks to some consulting with id Software to improve the second-to-second shooting. Bethesda's goal? To have the shooting stand shoulder to shoulder with the other great options on the market. The studio even hired away some Bungie talent to help with this remodel. With the new, built-from-scratch shooting system, Howard says Fallout 4 plays much more like a modern shooter. You can aim down the sights, use V.A.T.S., and play in first or third person. 

 

Yeah thats pretty much why majority of F1/2 game hate Bethesda

 

 

I don't know about the "majority", but there are plenty of reasons to hate Bethesda/Zenimax that have nothing to do with their design decisions. It really is a ****ty company, but some people take the aversion to frankly stupid extremes.

[Gromnir]

Think it's the kind of hate people have for a rival sports team, 

unexpected apt description.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3DS7NdJces

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

Close enough really, Sunderland is their local rival, if i recall. But not sure it reaches levels where they will go to injure and kill Sunderland players or staff.

[WDeranged]

I am excited for the game but I keep watching e3 reactions and I envy the glorygasm people are having over it.  Oh to be that naive again 

[Gromnir]

Close enough really, Sunderland is their local rival, if i recall. But not sure it reaches levels where they will go to injure and kill Sunderland players or staff.

wouldn't be sunderland.  for nma, codex and other sinks o' True fallout fandom it would be more akin to fans who would see their own coaches and players as purposeful betraying them.  be that as it may, am perfectly happy with the soccer hooligan analogy.  yes, the typical soccer hooligan is mostly hot air and can only attack when protected by the anonymity o' the faceless mob, so the chances that they would ever carry out their espoused threats o' violence is unlikely.  on the other hand, bottle throwing jackarses mindlessly burning dumpsters is a perfectly analogous.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Agiel]

I give (most of) the NMA crowd a lot more credit than the folks at, say, the Codex, even if I'm not _as_ hard on Bethesda as they are. They do good work for the Fallout wiki at the very least.

 

If Bethesda is improving the shooting, then I don't suppose they were going to finally make a game with decent AI.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Agiel

[Blodhemn]

I don't really think that's true. I mean, it's certainly a part of it, but at least I personally accepted that Fallout is never going back to Fo1/2 gameplay anymore. FNV shows that you can still make a great Fallout game. It's just that Bethesda sucks at everything I personally want in a Fallout game. That's a good branching story, well written characters and quests, no silly stupid stuff (or at least make it possible to deactivate that) and a coherent, working, believable game world (within the boundaries of the Fallout world and the already existing lore).

 

Fallout is a shooter game now, so making it play like a good shooter is acceptable (FNV is a much better shooter already than Fo3. The gunplay in Fo3 is pure crap).

 

 

Oh, and I absolutely hate how Bethesda has to reinvent everything all the time. Like, instead of adding the original cool weapons to Fo3, they had to reinvent *everything* and give it the same name. Combat Shotgun in Fo1/2 == super awesome. Combat Shotgun in Fo3 == lelwhat. Stuff like this is what I simply can't understand and won't accept.

I thought FO3 had quests and quest rewards just as good if not better than FNV. FNV had the better story/branching plot/shooter mechanics but the quests themselves weren't anything special(quests indoors were kind of a pain actually, with the maze layouts). I liked both for slightly different reasons but I can't say I look forward to another Bethesda sequel. Honestly I don't know if I'll even play it. There's such a thing as overkill and that's what the series is experiencing after two major releases with 4 dlc's each. How is another game even remotely interesting? Perhaps if Obsidian were doing it... in a few years, in a completely different setting...