CVG Fallout "5"'s wishlist

I'll never understand people's desire to customize their character's looks so much. In an entire game of FO3 or New Vegas you'll see your character for about three minutes total.

Instead I'd rather have more options to customize my character's personality, skill set, and how they can interact with the world. It seems we traded in Fallout 2's character customization in favor of more superficial customization.

What I want to see is a game that has the personality and skill customization plus the freedom and non-linearity of Fallout 2, and the dialogue trees of Planescape: Torment. That is a game worth buying.

Edit: I don't give a damn what my character looks like if my only two dialogue options are "I love you" and "I'm hungry" like in that picture that keeps popping up.
 
You know, vehicles could be the substitute of fast travel. You can Fast Travel only once you get a car, but it doesn't magically follows you around so if you want to fast travel you have to get back to it.

Of course this would mean that you don't *drive* the car.

Meh. Crappy article anyway. CVG...I remember ages ago reading the italian version. And it was terrible.
 
Or fast travel could be done on a map like FO1 and FO2, but you can't access it until you find a car.

Edit: I can understand people wanting driveable vehicles, but looking at Bethesda's "exploshun" cars I don't think it would really be a great idea. A bike makes more sense.
 
There is a Bike mod, it's kind of glitchy and eats ram like crazy, there is also a Hoverboard mod, as far as I understand is more stable, but a hoverboard belongs to Back to The Future, no Fallout.
 
Courier said:
Or fast travel could be done on a map like FO1 and FO2, but you can't access it until you find a car.
Click to expand...

Hey! quit stealing my idea :P


As to the article some of it made sense (Increased character customization) but the drivable car thing just seemed silly
 
This post just further justifies my opinion as to the continual decline of intelligent gaming journalism. Everything they pointed out was either a given for any sequel or utterly redundant. And as was pointed out in a previous reply, this would be Fallout -4- not 5. If we were counting "branch-off" games Fallout Tactics would've been 3 and Fallout 3 would have been 4 and so on. Whoever wrote this either didn't have enough go-juice before typing it up or possesses the IQ of a squashed cabbage leaf.




Courier said:
I'll never understand people's desire to customize their character's looks so much. In an entire game of FO3 or New Vegas you'll see your character for about three minutes total.

Instead I'd rather have more options to customize my character's personality, skill set, and how they can interact with the world. It seems we traded in Fallout 2's character customization in favor of more superficial customization.

What I want to see is a game that has the personality and skill customization plus the freedom and non-linearity of Fallout 2, and the dialogue trees of Planescape: Torment. That is a game worth buying.

Edit: I don't give a damn what my character looks like if my only two dialogue options are "I love you" and "I'm hungry" like in that picture that keeps popping up.
Click to expand...

In regards to character looks, I believe its completely warranted, a player should feel a sense of visual identity with the character they've created. Nothing was really sacrificed in character creation from FO2 to FO3, all FO1&2 had to offer as far as character customization came by way of stats, skills, age and name. Why? Because it was a 2D point-and-click, visual customization wasn't an option. That's no longer the case these days.

I'm not saying the current system couldn't use more work, of course it can, but every engine can. For example, I don't see why if I side with the "raiders" in The Pitt dlc that I'm suddenly treated like a villain because the whole story was morally ambiguous in every way, but it was treated in a black and white morality factor. Those are the elements I would like finer tuned.

My point is, I don't see why we can't have both.

And finally, I've played every Fallout title out there and most of the fan-made games, even playing Fallout 2 for a year without looking at any other game, I love the franchise more than any other title out there. But seriously, can we quit with the FO3 and FONV hate? I mean really, get over it, its not like they were completely F'd up like Duke Nukem Forever.
 
Whiskey said:
In regards to character looks, I believe its completely warranted, a player should feel a sense of visual identity with the character they've created. Nothing was really sacrificed in character creation from FO2 to FO3, all FO1&2 had to offer as far as character customization came by way of stats, skills, age and name. Why? Because it was a 2D point-and-click, visual customization wasn't an option. That's no longer the case these days.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is I don't want actual character customization to be sacrificed because the developers are busy making it so you can "customize the hairs on your eyebrow" or whatever, then having every character pretty much turn out exactly alike except for how they look like in Fallout 3. Especially when you're going to see your character's face maybe six or seven times throughout the entire game. If you want to do all that customization stuff play something like Spore or the Sims.

It seems gamers today are under the impression that "Role-playing" is dressing your character up like a guard and walking around a city with a torch pretending they are a guard.


But seriously, can we quit with the FO3 and FONV hate? I mean really, get over it, its not like they were completely F'd up like Duke Nukem Forever.
Click to expand...

Most people on here liked Fallout: New Vegas. NV was an apology letter for making FO3 rather than Van Buren.
 
Whiskey said:
seriously, can you quit with the FO3 hate?
Click to expand...
No

Whiskey said:
its not like they were completely F'd up like Duke Nukem Forever.
Click to expand...

orly_bush.jpg
 
Courier said:
Whiskey said:
In regards to character looks, I believe its completely warranted, a player should feel a sense of visual identity with the character they've created. Nothing was really sacrificed in character creation from FO2 to FO3, all FO1&2 had to offer as far as character customization came by way of stats, skills, age and name. Why? Because it was a 2D point-and-click, visual customization wasn't an option. That's no longer the case these days.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is I don't want actual character customization to be sacrificed because the developers are busy making it so you can "customize the hairs on your eyebrow" or whatever, then having every character pretty much turn out exactly alike except for how they look like in Fallout 3. Especially when you're going to see your character's face maybe six or seven times throughout the entire game. If you want to do all that customization stuff play something like Spore or the Sims.

It seems gamers today are under the impression that "Role-playing" is dressing your character up like a guard and walking around a city with a torch pretending they are a guard.


But seriously, can we quit with the FO3 and FONV hate? I mean really, get over it, its not like they were completely F'd up like Duke Nukem Forever.
Click to expand...

Most people on here liked Fallout: New Vegas. NV was an apology letter for making FO3 rather than Van Buren.
Click to expand...

First off, there is in fact a third person setting for both FO3 and FONV. Secondly, the only reason why that third person perspective wasn't used more often was because its the unpolished third person perspective from Oblivion. And since its more than likely Fallout will remain in Bethesda/Obsidian's hands it will also likley run on Skyrim's engine which has a majorly improved third person perspective. But hey, to each their own.

"seriously, can you quit with the FO3 hate?
No"

Silly me, guess I'm just a heretic for enjoying Fallout 3. If you feel like a greater fan for not liking a particular title, knock yourself out.
 
Whiskey said:
First off, there is in fact a third person setting for both FO3 and FONV. Secondly, the only reason why that third person perspective wasn't used more often was because its the unpolished third person perspective from Oblivion. And since its more than likely Fallout will remain in Bethesda/Obsidian's hands it will also likley run on Skyrim's engine which has a majorly improved third person perspective. But hey, to each their own.
Click to expand...

And you can't see your character's face in third person so I don't see why you should give a shit what your character's eyebrows look like, maybe they should allow you to customize the back of the head more?
 
no one here will or at least should attack you for your love on Fallout 3. But Courier is adressing a few very nice points. Dont just diss them because it seems like he "hates" Fallout 3. I dont think that is the case.

Fact is for many people today Roleplaying does not mean what it did 10 or 15 years ago (just to say that).

It started with people which enjoy very much "Sandbox-Games" but without actually knowing it because those get sold as "RPG"s. But they are not really RPGs they just share a few similarities. Like Character creation or costumisation (armor, clothes etc.). Though the difference between a Sandbox game and a "true" RPG is like the difference between a Racing game and a Racing simulation. The one is giving you access to many cars in some arcade like enviroment. The later trying to create the driving experience as close as possible to real life. - And the interesting part here is to people which love Simulations the "look" of the visuals is not as imortant like the "gameplay" or "feeling" of the world. In other words that a Car, Tank, Plane etc. should exactly behave like in real life. The look of it is secondary. Arcade games like Need for Speed place the look/visuals OVER gameplay.

For example I dont konw how people which actually REALLY enjoy RPGs can call a game like Oblivion a "true" RPG as it does not even feature the most simple principle of the role playing games. Choices which matter and dialogues. Oblivion only has Monologues. More comparable to some kind of adventure game. And much of that is as well true for Fallout 3. Sure it has the one or other "interesting" thing here and there. But those are usualy superfluous only on the surface of the game. You can see that on very climatic events like the explosion of the nuclear bomb in Megaton. For the rest of the gameworld it does not really matter if the player did it now or not. You dont even lose the mainquest of that town.

It is also no surprise that Bethesda made a lot of fuss around the way how you can "dress and shape" the look of your character (remember how they called it a "feature" that your "Dad" would look like some older version of your player character ...).

This is not only unique for Fallout 3 and/or Bethesda games. Mass Effect follows this route in many way as well where the costumisation of Shepard is a high focus of many players.

In many old RPGs you had maybe from the visuals many limitations when it comes to the look of your character. But that was not important regarding the game or the world. Game developers found other ways how to get aroud that (just compare the artistic side of those games to doay Baldurs Gate 2 for example offered a huge variety in areas and quests). And there is Planescape where the look of your character was so minor that there was not even much reason to give the player some kind of different armor. Interacting with the gameworld seemed much more important.

It seems like the kind of experience which was offered by games like Arcanum or Planescape has been lost. For what ever reason. And now companies like Bethesda or EA think that games like Oblivion or Dragon age 2 are those kind of games gamers want.
 
And please do include more to do with the Brotherhood. I F&*king adore them. And frankly I cannot see, now, a fallout game without laser, plasma, orbital, splasometric and other-mega-cannon-futuristic weapons. YEAH!
Click to expand...

...... :wall:

Honestly, what the fuck has this got to do with Fallout?
Sure we had some elements of it in the games, but that was to break up the regular wasteland atmosphere and show what the future science of before the war was like.

But this? It sounds like this guy wants to play Gears of War in the Fallout universe.

Edit: sentence error
 
What Bethesda did to Fallout series is the same thing Hollywood did to Sherlock Holmes. Exaggerate a part, blow it ASTRONOMICALLY out of proportion, and then shrug - "what? it was in the original canon".

Yes, Sherlock Holmes could box in the original books. But he's not a fucking action hero.

Just as Rocky Balboa, could, no doubt, read. But we shouldn't get a movie called "Rocky The Librarian" because of that, now should we?

Decline angers me.
 
No vehicles! No, no, no! I realise we had a car in Fallout 2 but I do NOT want vehicles to a be a major part of the game. What is this bloody Borderlands? I hated that game.

JUST NO!

The wasteland is no longer epic and unforgiving because i'm speeding across it in my car, the enemies i'm encountering are no longer anything to worry about, I simply mow them down with my car. LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME! Just no.

Civilisation is moving on but it is still a post-global nuclear Armageddon wasteland. Are the resources, materials etc. available to begin building cars properly? No, surely not. Terrible, terrible idea. Vehicles must still be extremely rare and not available to the wastelanders.
 
Bicycles would be realistic, but about no post-apocalyptic story in any media ever has them.
 
Bicycles would make sense from a "easy to get" perspective, but seeing as everything is littered with shards and junk you'd be replacing your tires each 5 minutes or so. (if we talk about "realism" ;) )
 
Surf Solar said:
Bicycles would make sense from a "easy to get" perspective, but seeing as everything is littered with shards and junk you'd be replacing your tires each 5 minutes or so. (if we talk about "realism" ;) )
Click to expand...
Not really. Bicycle tires are not as fragile as one might think. And you don't need to ride through piles of glass :D
In cities it might be kind useless, but if you need to get some miles done in a day, bicycles are the way to go/ride.
Think about it. It's way more energy efficient than walking.
You can carry more weight with the same amount of work.
You're way faster, mostly silent (only important in case of zombies or something like that) and there are bicycles everywhere (although PA media doesn't seem to think so).
Easy to repair and maintain, light enough to carry over unridable terrain...
Perfect post apocalyptic transportation, but somehow nobody ever thinks about them :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top