Any Fallout fan knows that Bethesda didn't exactly paint as brilliant of picture of that universe comparatively as to what the original developers did. The lore and details seemed way more richer on the west coast, and what we found on the east coast in Fallout 3 seemed like a watered down retread of the first two games. But anyways, I still think it can be saved as long as the developers decide to take this next game more seriously, and learn what Obsidian did for their last game in New Vegas.
Anyways, here's my views.
First off, as I said before, Fallout 3 (at least for me) seemed like a retreading of the first two games and what I mean by that is there was nothing really interesting they created to stand out. We had the BoS, they brought back the Enclave, the Super mutants were dumb, and really that was it. No inclusions of new factions. I mean, you have the NCR on the west coast, but where was the east coast counterparts? In FO:NV, you didn't just have generic raiders for cannon fodder, the cannon fodder factions in that game had unique identities that stood out like the Fiends or the Powder Gangers. There were so many more split factions and tribes that were in the game and compared to Fallout 3 there's a lot to be desired. The only unique faction that really stood out that you couldn't find in the other games were the Ashur's slavers in the Pitts DLC. But even still, they didn't really have their own characteristics outside of being slavers. There's so much more going on just in FO:NV that there's... like I say again, a lot left to be desired if we're going to go back to the east coast.
Secondly, we need a better explanation for why the east coast has stayed more primitive compared to the west. If the areas are still radioactive, we need a better reason than the east was more heavily bombarded than the west. Now I like the idea that the east has stayed more primitive and savage because it's something to work with that stands out with what's going on in NCR territory, and I know that not everywhere in the world civilizations advance at the same pace. But still, if the east is more wild, I want more reason for it.
Thirdly, I want more variety of mutations. We need more variety of mutated wildlife that will make the east stand out and seem different from the west.
And finally, Bethesda should learn from their DLCs in Fallout 3 and not make Fallout 4 landscape all seem the same. We're not in the Mojave desert anymore and DC shouldn't have looked so much like a desert as it did. Learn from Point Lookout and add some vegetation. Show different climates not just arid deserts. In DC it should still snow, maybe even go so far as to show nuclear icestorms and flooded cities. For instance, in a real world scenario where the polar ice caps completely melt and ocean levels rise, you should see a flooded New York city. So if Fallout 4 takes place in New York, the city should be flooded to where you see only skyscrapers standout like islands.
Anyways, what do you guys think?
Anyways, here's my views.
First off, as I said before, Fallout 3 (at least for me) seemed like a retreading of the first two games and what I mean by that is there was nothing really interesting they created to stand out. We had the BoS, they brought back the Enclave, the Super mutants were dumb, and really that was it. No inclusions of new factions. I mean, you have the NCR on the west coast, but where was the east coast counterparts? In FO:NV, you didn't just have generic raiders for cannon fodder, the cannon fodder factions in that game had unique identities that stood out like the Fiends or the Powder Gangers. There were so many more split factions and tribes that were in the game and compared to Fallout 3 there's a lot to be desired. The only unique faction that really stood out that you couldn't find in the other games were the Ashur's slavers in the Pitts DLC. But even still, they didn't really have their own characteristics outside of being slavers. There's so much more going on just in FO:NV that there's... like I say again, a lot left to be desired if we're going to go back to the east coast.
Secondly, we need a better explanation for why the east coast has stayed more primitive compared to the west. If the areas are still radioactive, we need a better reason than the east was more heavily bombarded than the west. Now I like the idea that the east has stayed more primitive and savage because it's something to work with that stands out with what's going on in NCR territory, and I know that not everywhere in the world civilizations advance at the same pace. But still, if the east is more wild, I want more reason for it.
Thirdly, I want more variety of mutations. We need more variety of mutated wildlife that will make the east stand out and seem different from the west.
And finally, Bethesda should learn from their DLCs in Fallout 3 and not make Fallout 4 landscape all seem the same. We're not in the Mojave desert anymore and DC shouldn't have looked so much like a desert as it did. Learn from Point Lookout and add some vegetation. Show different climates not just arid deserts. In DC it should still snow, maybe even go so far as to show nuclear icestorms and flooded cities. For instance, in a real world scenario where the polar ice caps completely melt and ocean levels rise, you should see a flooded New York city. So if Fallout 4 takes place in New York, the city should be flooded to where you see only skyscrapers standout like islands.
Anyways, what do you guys think?
