Fallout 4 theories

[Lonely Swordsman]

Fallout Hawaii. After all those deserts and ruined cities I wanna go somewhere nice next game.

But it's probably gonna be New Mexico or Texas or something. Oh well, at least it'll be interesting to see if how things developed along the border (I don't remember if Mexico got nuked as well, it would be kinda cool if they had survived and now the tables are turned with the US a tribal wasteland and Mexico as this magical promised land)

 

[Hawk eye1466]

Just as long as it's more in feel to fallout 3 I know new vegas was closer to the originals but I couldn't play more than an hour or two before getting really bored and going back to 3 to search for more bobbleheads because I'd already done every quest I could find. But it could be a lot of fun to run around boston as an android it could have a lot of cool things like switching your arms to a chainsaw evil dead style or any number of different alterations you could do and now I'm all excited for something that chances are won't be close to the finished product at all ah well.

 

[legend of duty]

im thinking the dakotas or montana type areas. id like to see more cowboyish and tribal places. Also more makeshift weapons like spears or homemade explosives.

 

[Substitute Troll]

I don't know about these rumors, but here's my theory of how the next Fallout game will be:

It will be set in New York,the map will be a lot more vertical than previous Fallouts, with people settling up high in the ruined skyscrapers, the lower down you go the more mutants you come across. There could be cities built on platforms that go across the city from building to building.

Developing this kind of vertical landscape could help them when making TESX: Valenwood, seeing as that region is very much about the verticality.

If anyone finds anything wrong with my theory, please comment. I'm not a Fallout expert, New York might be bombed to smitherines as far as I know.

 

[The Last Nomad]

My theory is... It will have a bunch of tedious quests, one maybe two above average quest line, An abundance of reused textures and assets,Though reusing assets still somehow ends with a buggy product. Narrative driven but very bland and uninteresting plot with many of the major tropes being reused with names/locations crossed out and replaced relevant to the new setting. Then after its release we get hit with a series of short choppy DLCs that are also narrative driven but clock in at about 10$ per content hour.

Just my best educated guess.

Educated by what? The book of stupid? This doesn't sound like a Fallout game to me...

I have no expectations or thoughts about it. A Fallout game on the Skyrim engine was kinda what I've been waiting for as soon as I saw the gameplay trailer for Skyrim.

 

[Brad Monk]

I hope it's in more of a urban setting, can't really say where abouts exactly.. I always felt that they have been going towards the more space theme of things. First with F3 and the alien expansion, then with F:NV and big MT. I know big MT wasn't set in space but it had alot of futuristic weapons, robo-scorpians that shot lasers and cyber-dogs. They also had aliens if you chose the 'wacky wasteland' trait. I think they might have it around something like a NASA shuttle launch base or something around those lines. I could really care less as long as it's a little more urban with alot of new messed up mutants. I was also hopeing they might go towards choosing a 'race'. They made super mutants more civilized in the last installment so I was hopeing before you start the game with F4 you might actually be able to choose whether your a ghoul, a super mutant or a human each with thier own drawbacks/benefits. Though I could also see them messing that up so maybe its best they just leave that be..

I hope they try and mix the good of F3 along with F:NV, I really enjoyed both and I play both for different reasons. The reloading bench and the weapon system in NV is definatly better and I find its more of a challenge which I also like, however in F3 I found exploring to be more exciting as you are completely free to wander the world. Where as in NV they push you to go south and continue the main story because everywhere else has deathclaws, giant radscorpians or cazadores. I also found in F3 there are alot more large locations to explore such as abandoned buildings and subway statons then in new vegas where it was mostly abandoned shacks and a sh*t ton of desert. Which makes sense but its not as satisfying.

Long story short, I think they will go with something space themed, and it better be good

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

Dunno really. I'll be perfectly happy if it fairly close to the atmosphere F3 had. That and the explorative aspect was the best parts of the game for me. Picking up long ago written letters and old terminal entries was a 'hobby' of mine within the game.

 

[Draxz]

(In 1, 2, 3, where you escape The Vault).

In FO2 you start out as a tribal villager.

Wait, you do? Crud...

Remember the Temple of Fuck-These-Ants-And-Scorpions?

Ohhhhyeah. I completely forgot what Fallout actually used to look like. Now I feel dumb.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Boston is all well and good but I was hoping for Chicago

Fallout Tactics was non-canonical (I think) and light on story but it was set in the Midwest and primarily concerned the Chicago chapter of the BoS (if I recall)

It is and it isn't [http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_Tactics]. Basically, some parts of the story contradict the previous games, but the important events in the story are still considered to have happened.

 

[DragonChi]

As much as I want to see a new location with more interesting scenery, I am more concerned with getting more robust and dynamic gameplay and mechanics. They need some updating. I also want REAL multiple endings. Not the BS we got at the end of Fallout 3. I want what Fallout 2 gave. I want my choices to have a much larger impact on how the story ends.

 

[Jimb Mulholland]

I think there would be a great deal of material to work with from an Enclave slant. The Enclave's tech was always much better and cleaner, to imply that it was new or at least able to be reconditioned after the bombs fell. Their methods were always written to be incredibly self centered and even malevolent, but as a PC playing the role of a new Enclave trooper, or even just a citizen, there would be a lot of paths and lore to explore in such a setting. Seattle or the Northwest in general may make a great environment; it is implied in Lonesome Hearts DLC that rain is indeed possible in the Wasteland. The northwest could very well be restored to verdant pastures by now, with all the natural rain they get up there. Just a thought.

 

[The Last Nomad]

As a general rule I find that the "Fallout 3 vs Fallout NV" argument can be split into two groups:
1. People who like the novelty and exploration of Fallout 3 a whole bunch.
and
2. People who like the coherent world and writing in Fallout New Vegas a whole bunch.

The point being that they scratch different itches.

I don't mean to just outright dismiss you're theory, but I found Fallout 3 did all of those things alot better than New Vegas.

 

[I am Harbinger]

I'd like to see the Rockies. We've done the desert, we've done the wreckage of the East Coast. What about the mountains?

This, basically. There was some rough terrian in NV, but if you've ever been to the Rockies, you know it's a whole different ball game there. If I had to narrow it down to a state, I'd say Colorado, because of the varied terrian and central-ness to the continental United States. You've got the mountains on one end, plains on the rest, and Denver for a city center. I'd be curious to see Denver, or Boulder, or a vacation town in the Rockies, post-nuke-age.

As for story, not gonna speculate, although, if your a fan of pattern recognition, it seems every other "canon" title had the standard "Vault Escape/Departure" opening, so that may be what we'll be getting in 4.

I started with FO3, and I've played NV, 1, and 2 since then, in that order, so I'm a fan or this series. I honestly don't much care where it's set or what the story is, as long as I can get me some more Fallout-y goodness.

 

[Aarowbeatsdragon]

I thought the Commonwealth was largely Canada was it not? That's the impression I got but I don't know all the FO lore.

I'm afraid you're wrong The commonwealth is located at MIT university in massachusits boston.

 

[Aarowbeatsdragon]

As a general rule I find that the "Fallout 3 vs Fallout NV" argument can be split into two groups:
1. People who like the novelty and exploration of Fallout 3 a whole bunch.
and
2. People who like the coherent world and writing in Fallout New Vegas a whole bunch.

The point being that they scratch different itches.

This is completely right, and its why bethesda need to let obsidian write the story and dialouge and all that jazz and bethesda makes the world and designs the quests. Sadly this day will never come, so everyone please just agree that they were both brilliant games, i did not make this thread for people to argue over which game is better...should have seen it coming though.

 

[Havtorn]

As a general rule I find that the "Fallout 3 vs Fallout NV" argument can be split into two groups:
1. People who like the novelty and exploration of Fallout 3 a whole bunch.
and
2. People who like the coherent world and writing in Fallout New Vegas a whole bunch.

The point being that they scratch different itches.

I don't mean to just outright dismiss you're theory, but I found Fallout 3 did all of those things alot better than New Vegas.

Yeah, obviously not everyone is going to agree with me, that's why I just call it a general rule rather than absolute fact.

I can't really say that I agree, though. A lot can be said about the writing in Fallout 3, but "coherent" isn't at all the word I'd use, it's a lot more patchwork. You've got totally separated communities set up a stone's trow from each other with wildly different themes and stories, and they very rarely even acknowledge each other and are oblivious to the main story. Little grannies living happily within shouting distance of a building full of super mutants and a nest of fire-ants, that kind of thing. Contrast this to NV where almost everything is centered around, or influenced by, the NCR/Legion war or the New Vegas political scene. I'm not saying that the former type of writing doesn't have it's place - I think that type of novelty is the main reason the exploration element works so well in Fallout 3 - but I tend to get rather uninvested once I notice that, story-wise, most locations are their own little bubble-universes.

But, as I said, different itches.

 

[NickBrahz]

As a general rule I find that the "Fallout 3 vs Fallout NV" argument can be split into two groups:
1. People who like the novelty and exploration of Fallout 3 a whole bunch.
and
2. People who like the coherent world and writing in Fallout New Vegas a whole bunch.

The point being that they scratch different itches.

I don't mean to just outright dismiss you're theory, but I found Fallout 3 did all of those things alot better than New Vegas.

Seriously? Fallout 3's plot made no sense -snip-

Im sorry but if i was just shot in the head and left for dead, i would stick clear of that person then pissing him off and getting shot in the head again.

 

[TheOneBearded]

snip

Look, I've played both games various times and for many, many hours. Comparing them to each other, I felt that Obsidian made the better game: narrative wise, dlc wise (seriously, F3's dlc were very inferior to NV - still good enough, but inferior) and environment wise (kind of). Fallout 3 was the base and Obsidian built upon it. Fallout 3 used to be my #1 in my list of favorite games. Then Fallout:NV game along.

However, it all goes down to preference, so don't continue this discussion and turn it into a Fallout 3 vs. Fallout: New Vegas argument. Pretty please.