imagine if you will.......Fallout 4

[hem dazon 90]

i heard they're making a new one called fallout: new vegas, so im assuming they're planning on making it take place in las vegas

o rly!
sorry couldn't resist anyway why do all fallout fanboys hate fallout 3 and bethesda?
fallout 3 was a really good game and it captured the feel of post nuclear apocalyptic wasteland really well.
anyway new vegas isn't being made by bethesda

Because they took the game and made it into something it's not, it's an FPS. It didn't capture the feel at all, they have robots, they have a reliable source of food enough to feed cities without any visible agriculture or food sources.

The choice system is very simple, the customisability is empty, even with all the sliding customisation bars, you can't make a mentally retarded brute who can't speak by giving him 1 intelligence, and you can't give your character a back-story seeing as you play it out in that dull mess known as childhood.




If they'd renamed it and every other thing in the game and called it "Futureblivion" then I would accept it as a good game, but it doesn't deserve to be a part of the Fallout franchise, or it could have at least not put the number on the end. that number means it's officially a direct sequel, rather than a spin-off like Tactics.

I understand that Bethesda was trying to appeal to a mass audience, and a lot of people enjoy it, but by doing that they took out a lot of the depth and complexity that Fallout was MEANT to be, and giving us a shallow FPS with the illusion of choice.

Fallout 4? Bring back Chris Avellone and make it all good again.

/End Fanboy Rant

(Oh, and flame away, I realize that this was a biased and fan-boyish comment, but dammit, I think I'm entitled to it after playing through that game thoroughly just so nobody can say I didn't give it a chance)

their can be a truce between FPS and RPG just look at deus ex the greatest game ever

There can be a truce yes, but it wasn't very good in Fallout 3. The FPS and RPG elements kind of clunked together roughly, like when you try to put the square block into the circle shaped hole.

And from the comment after the one above, I can tell you have a great respect for women there, bud.

to respond to the last statement I have to say I was misunderstood I was just saying that it was comedic in fallot 2 how you could basicly sleep way though the game

 

[jaeger138]

New York, I fear, would just end up becoming too similar to DC in Fallout 3 (destroyed monuments and important buildings scattered everywhere). Also, the city's too big, it would ALL be destroyed buildings. Vegas sounds good, destroyed night clubs, vast desert area. But is that kinda samey too? How about Fallout 4: Venice? Or Fallout 4: Rome?

 

[Marv21]

1 set in Canada could be cool!

 

[Booze Zombie]

Bring back together all the Interplay team (except for What-The-Fuck-Chuck and whoever wrote the item descriptors of Brotherhood Of Steel), get that Science Boy gameplay style implemented alongside the stealth, action and talk boy gameplay styles, don't use the dialogue system from Fallout 3 (even the guy making Van Braun said "random speech checks just make you reload until you get it") and a less stupid weapon breakage system.

New York, I fear, would just end up becoming too similar to DC in Fallout 3 (destroyed monuments and important buildings scattered everywhere). Also, the city's too big, it would ALL be destroyed buildings. Vegas sounds good, destroyed night clubs, vast desert area. But is that kinda samey too? How about Fallout 4: Venice? Or Fallout 4: Rome?

"Assassin! Glurgh!" "Quick, to the handglider!"

 

[Internet Kraken]

and a less stupid weapon breakage system.

Quick question. Do the old Fallout games have a weapon degredation system?

 

[Booze Zombie]

Quick question. Do the old Fallout games have a weapon degredation system?

They had none what-so-ever.
Instead, the thing bogging you down was that ammo actually weighed something (imagine that).

 

[Internet Kraken]

Quick question. Do the old Fallout games have a weapon degredation system?

They had none what-so-ever.
Instead, the thing bogging you down was that ammo actually weighed something (imagine that).

And it's not exactly easy to get. Though maybe that's because I just started playing Fallout 2. It's a lot harder than Fallout 3.

 

[101194]

i heard they're making a new one called fallout: new vegas, so im assuming they're planning on making it take place in las vegas

o rly!
sorry couldn't resist anyway why do all fallout fanboys hate fallout 3 and bethesda?
fallout 3 was a really good game and it captured the feel of post nuclear apocalyptic wasteland really well.
anyway new vegas isn't being made by bethesda

The point is that Fallout 2 and 1 had a type of RTS/FPS acspect that made the RPG feeling a hell lot better. Fallout 3 seamed wierd and Foreign, U'd have to play fallout 2 to understand.

 

[Bobtowna]

London with a 1920s feel.
I want to know what happened in Europe.

But Fallout is about America.

No, its about the cold-war and the consequences of it. We have only seen it from the point of view of America at this point. A bit about China too.
There where still consequences other places. I want to see them.

before the nuclear war, europeon countries were the ones in the middle east fighting for oil. america didnt give a crap because they still had alska. i bet you know the rest, china invades alska blah blah blah power armor helps US win blah blah nuclear war.

 

[bob-2000]

Wow, people really hate Bethesda, don't they?

I thought that Fallout 3 was fantastic.

 

[Booze Zombie]

And it's not exactly easy to get. Though maybe that's because I just started playing Fallout 2. It's a lot harder than Fallout 3.

You should start with Fallout 1, just to give you a feel for the whole style then 2's for when you got it

 

[Booze Zombie]

No, its about the cold-war and the consequences of it. We have only seen it from the point of view of America at this point. A bit about China too.
There where still consequences other places. I want to see them.

It's not THE Cold War, it's a war. In the year 227x.

 

[nikman333]

things to fix in a fallout sequel:
-combat system (maybe make it feel like cod or half life. but still be partly rpg i.e. strength= how much to carry. agility= walk/run speed. etc.)

-variety:

- -in weaponry (ok 3 pistols. ok 2 assaultrifles. and some glowy energy weapons.
but if you've seen one you've seen everything else. and a few "special"
variations doesn't make it good. they also say "custom weapons" but all is
doing is trying to be cute. the only "custom" in the game is the character
creation. a TRUE custom weapon feature with the option of making my own
super 1 hit kill weapon would be the best thing to ever happen in anygame)

- -in environment (sure DC is nice and all but maryland is the most boring place in the
america. like in fallout there is nothing to see in real life too.
a nuke isnt going to make a boring place more interesting.)

- -in enemies (i can count the kinds of enemies on my fingertips... but the raiders are
ok... since they have fun hair)

-crouching... (crouching was a big wtf in fallout. they could have done so much more with it.
i remeber this one time in big town, where i kept thinking "grr i hate big
town. its right on the big open wastland but theres no way out. oh! i see
a wall made out of a car door, maybe i can fit through the window.")

somewhere along the line, while i was typing this, i lost my train of thought. but i know there is more.

oh! there needs to be more Woah! in the next one. like when you first see the behemoth. and when you first see prime move and fight... damnit i got lost again.

oh well. im sure you guys will respond and keep adding

 

[Borrowed Time]

Yes, Fallout 1/2 were masterpieces for their time, but to go in expecting the same subject matter, etc, to blow you away just as the others did is just plain naive. I've played both of the origionals and approached FO3 with an open mind, not expecting that much in all honesty. Yes, it was a great game! Did it capture me like the first two. Sure, but on a different level. FO 1/2 both had their problems, especially if you look at them from today's standards, but for their time they were fantastic. FO3 is the same. Sure it has its faults, but for what they've had to work with, they really did an excellent job.

Now, OT, FO:NV sounds interesting, but once again I'm going to reserve my judgement for when it finally comes out. I'll not fall under the hype train's wheels just to be let down when it doesn't perform as I thought it should. Instead I'll enjoy the aspects of it that are great, curse the mistakes, and enjoy it for what it will be. Also, on a side note, it was Black Isle that did Fallout, and they're no longer a company.

 

[Sindre1]

There where still consequences other places. I want to see them.

before the nuclear war, europeon countries were the ones in the middle east fighting for oil. america didnt give a crap because they still had alska. i bet you know the rest, china invades alska blah blah blah power armor helps US win blah blah nuclear war.

Sure, I kinda knew that part. I meant that I want to know what happened after the bombs fell.

 

[Cavmatrix]

how about a fallout game were you start as a abosultley normal middle aged person enjoying your wonderful life in a world full of work doing robots and easy living then suddenly your world is destroyed when nuclear bombs destroy your city and you have to find a way to survive. no enclave.no brotherhood of steel. just a simple post apopoliptic survival rpg with fps elemetnt? should be in real time.longer play.

 

[sneak_copter]

Wow, people really hate Bethesda, don't they?

Not really, I think it's just most long-time Fallout fans were a little thrown by their franchise becoming more mainstream and having a radical change in gameplay.

But, being my first Fallout game, No.3 was awesome.