I hated Fallout 3 and NV. Ruined a good series. If Fallout 4 was like the first two games (and thus an actual s equal), I'd buy it. Otherwise, I'd finally punch all of my friends in the face (all of my friends are super-crazy Fallout 3 fans)
Poll: Fallout 4, would you buy it?
- Thread starter Vanitas likes Bubbles
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would buy a new Fallout without any hesitation.
Fallout > Elder Scrolls imo.
If I could pick, the setting would be middle to east Texas. If there was some way for the game to stretch from the Hill Country to the Piney Woods regions, I think that would be fun.
Fallout > Elder Scrolls imo.
If I could pick, the setting would be middle to east Texas. If there was some way for the game to stretch from the Hill Country to the Piney Woods regions, I think that would be fun.
I would buy it. A Fallout game with decently looking and sounding NPCs sounds awesome. I'll take all the exploration they can throw at me really.
I'd most likely pre-order it, and I certainly wouldn't dislike Obsidian having some involvement in the development.
Depends on early impressions, though... although I have no real reason to distrust Bethesda. Not even Fallout 3 was anywhere close to pulling a Mass Effect 3.
Depends on early impressions, though... although I have no real reason to distrust Bethesda. Not even Fallout 3 was anywhere close to pulling a Mass Effect 3.
Probably not, post-apoc isn't really my thing.
But I would suggest keeping it in America. Despite how cool Fallout UK, or Fallout Aus might sound. Do you really think splitting the Fallout fanbase further would be a good idea?
I mean Bethesda had people frothing at the mouth because 3 wasn't a turn based game (and other reasons, but shush). Do you really want to see the amount of nerd rage caused by "shifting the focus" of the series?
Well I do, but only because I find the butt-hurt both hilarious and pathetic in equal measures. But I can see the almost inevitable "Please stop with the Fallout 4 threads" threads popping up, and they're a real downer when it comes watching the carnage caused by a fanboy scorned.
But I would suggest keeping it in America. Despite how cool Fallout UK, or Fallout Aus might sound. Do you really think splitting the Fallout fanbase further would be a good idea?
I mean Bethesda had people frothing at the mouth because 3 wasn't a turn based game (and other reasons, but shush). Do you really want to see the amount of nerd rage caused by "shifting the focus" of the series?
Well I do, but only because I find the butt-hurt both hilarious and pathetic in equal measures. But I can see the almost inevitable "Please stop with the Fallout 4 threads" threads popping up, and they're a real downer when it comes watching the carnage caused by a fanboy scorned.
I'd play this game but I would like it more if Obsidian were not involved.
Hear me out.
I enjoyed New Vegas, but only in its gameplay improvements. As far as stories went I enjoyed F3's more: I had a greater investment in the story and my character felt like he had a back-story. As maze-like as it was I enjoyed exploring the ruins of Washington D.C. and the final battle between the Brotherhood of Steel (including Liberty Prime) and the Enclave was pretty epic. The Broken Steel expansion made it even better.
New Vegas on the other hand chose multiple plots, and while that freedom was nice it didn't feel as solid as F3. You didn't feel the same kind of investment, or connection to the setting. The characters - some of them - were interesting, but didn't draw me in much.
A solid main plot like F3, with plenty of factions like Skyrim, would make for a great game, in my opinion.
Hear me out.
I enjoyed New Vegas, but only in its gameplay improvements. As far as stories went I enjoyed F3's more: I had a greater investment in the story and my character felt like he had a back-story. As maze-like as it was I enjoyed exploring the ruins of Washington D.C. and the final battle between the Brotherhood of Steel (including Liberty Prime) and the Enclave was pretty epic. The Broken Steel expansion made it even better.
New Vegas on the other hand chose multiple plots, and while that freedom was nice it didn't feel as solid as F3. You didn't feel the same kind of investment, or connection to the setting. The characters - some of them - were interesting, but didn't draw me in much.
A solid main plot like F3, with plenty of factions like Skyrim, would make for a great game, in my opinion.
Absolutely, Fallout 3 was a great game and although I enjoyed New Vegas more I still think Bethesda can make another wonderful entry to a amazing series.
If Obsidian writes it, and Valve does the Quality Assurance, then I will buy it. Of course, Valve is only wishful thinking.
Depends. If made by Bethesda, no chance in hell. Fallout 3 was one too many. If made by Obsidian, TAKE MY MONEY ALREADY!
Maybe, but the fact that Bethesda would be making it and not Obsidian (with Chris Avellone at the helm) makes me sad enough that I might just not bother with it. Nothing really against Bethesda; Fallout 3 was okay despite the terrible ending, and I love Skyrim, but Obsidian is just better when it comes to the things I really want to see in a new Fallout game (smart writing, tough moral choices, relatable characters, meaningful themes, etc.). Bethesda's great at epic escapist fantasy, but that's not Fallout. At the very most, unless I hear they've gone in a smarter, more New Vegas-like direction with the writing and morality system, I might get a Bethesda-made Fallout 4 after a huge price drop.
I would love to see a Mass Effect-like decision system where one decision will have huge impacts later in the game - not just the end. Hell, it can be just like Mass Effect 3 and have you going from faction to faction rallying troops to fight an army of super mutants ruled by a second Master. I don't care where the game takes place; as long as Obsidian has a hand in the game, I will be more than content (Obsidian gets the story and lore, Bethy gets bug testing and tech).DustyDrB said: