Everything in Fallout 4 looks too new

I don't have a problem with colors, but I don't think that objects, vehicles, and houses, exposed to environmental conditions like wind and rain for two hundred years, not to mention 'human' conditions such as use of explosives, bullets, or just plain setting things on fire will not have any effects on the condition or appears of said objects, vehicles, and houses.

Wear and tear you know, that is why we regularly clean up, repaint, and replace things like windows, wooden benches, things made of rubber, or steel, and tear down old buildings when maintenance becomes to expensive and new buildings are more effective.

But then again Dragonborn, the only reason you seem to be posting here for is to get a negative reaction from us.

I wish trolling would wear down over time.


Nature itself can be pretty colorful and people are going to want to make their environs pleasing to them.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Even in a post apocalyptic world there are people who enjoy that their houses have a nice lick of paint on them to look more pleasing. (or put on some curtains, or place a rug on the floor, or grow flowers simply because they are pretty)
 
Last edited:
Probably right next to the survival part I guess. I mean if you're starving to death, do it at least with style!
 
Crni Vuk said:
Probably right next to the survival part I guess. I mean if you're starving to death, do it at least with style!
Click to expand...

Heh of course not that soon after a nuclear war. I meant more like when things start improving again like the in the post-post apocalyptic era of Fallout 2 and New Vegas.

No it would have been pretty out of place in and before Fallout 1.
 
How should I respond to someone who says it is "just a game" and it "doesn't matter" that it makes no sense?
 
Then by that logic, if the next James Bond movie was just two hours of old guys removing and replacing their dentures, no one could complain because it's fiction, it doesn't matter.

Everything matters.

Everything that exists can be analyzed and critiqued regardless of it's intent and purpose.

If they don't get that, then you're not gonna make much progress.
 
Don't tell me you guys want EVERYTHING to look boring and depressing brown/grey like all previous games?
 
the game will no doubt be big. there will be rebuilt and untouched areas. they seem to have shown a lot of rebuilt areas. also some swampy ones that seem appropriately wrecked.

i'd wait until the game is out to determine if bethesda has once again ruined everything.
 
Why is it always absolutes?

I just want world design that makes sense.

Are some areas going to be brighter and full of color?

Of course!

That's great, people don't usually squat in bleak, gray hellholes unless they have to.

But it's been over 200 years by Bethesda's timeline, so why are people still squatting in burnt out husks and junkyard shanty towns?

Maybe there'll be some areas that are well-maintained and pristine.

But as it stands, it just kind of looks like the same out dirty steel aesthetic.
 
So it still has that post apocalyptic fallout feel...

Also we have only seen like one city so far, and barely in detail? Considering how gigantic F4 is going to be there's going to be more different cities.
 
frajaq said:
So it still has that post apocalyptic fallout feel...

Also we have only seen like one city so far, and barely in detail? Considering how gigantic F4 is going to be there's going to be more different cities.
Click to expand...

FALLOUT WASN"T ABOUT THE APOCALYPSE!!! It was about rebuilding the world ground up!
 
Dr Fallout said:
frajaq said:
So it still has that post apocalyptic fallout feel...

Also we have only seen like one city so far, and barely in detail? Considering how gigantic F4 is going to be there's going to be more different cities.
Click to expand...

FALLOUT WASN"T ABOUT THE APOCALYPSE!!! It was about rebuilding the world ground up!
Click to expand...

That's why he said "post" apocalyptic. And what do people do after apocalypse? Rebuild...
 
Delbert said:
How should I respond to someone who says it is "just a game" and it "doesn't matter" that it makes no sense?
Click to expand...

Point them towards the Secondary World ideas and rules that Tolkien and others have spoken of for years: Suspension of Disbelief when done well leads to Secondary Belief which if maintained through scrutiny leads to Immersion.

Having rules of the world get broken halfway through the story, or early on, is an Immersion killer and that makes you question more about the world's rules. (Looking at you, no-clean-water-in-the-Capital-Wasteland plot.)
 
Settlement building could be interesting but populating the settlements is the critical component regarding story. Are the new citizens war refugees? companions? or just people you can get to follow you out into the waste without any motive or trust building incident?
 
As far as I know, the settlements are just like the houses you could build in Skyrim with the Hearthstone DLC.

The big difference is that you can also build turrets and robots and other associated thingamajigs.

I mean, it's not bad, but I don't see how it adds to gameplay aside from being a time-sink.
 
generalissimofurioso said:
I mean, it's not bad, but I don't see how it adds to gameplay aside from being a time-sink.
Click to expand...

This is all there is to it. Bethesda games are nothing but a string of connected time sinks. Their very leveling system is a time sink. It's somewhere up there at the top of the list of priorities for a Bethesda game, to have as many time sinks as possible.
 
Personally, I'd love to see the settlement building branch out into an actual quest.

Setting up trade networks, establishing and training town guards, surveying for agricultural needs.

You know, the stuff that actually happens when towns exist.

But Beth pretty much confirmed that it's only a timesink.

Which sucks.

Because it's like they're stunting themselves.
 
I like the idea of Settlement building in a Fallout game but I don't know if it melds well with Bethesda's ethos of "the player ought to be allowed to do whatever they want whenever they want." It makes more sense to have to find a place where a settlement is not currently but makes sense for there to be (some kind of natural resource or defensible position say) and then resolve the issue that prevented people settling there in the 200 years before you got there. You shouldn't just be able to grow crops if the land isn't good, you shouldn't be able to put a well just wherever, and you should need both food and water to make a community that can sustain itself. Things like "auto-turrets" should be at the extreme ends of what you can have with maximal resources devoted to settlement building because that kind of pre-war technology is rare.
 
Dr Fallout said:
MercenarySnake said:
Dr Fallout said:
Oh and Children. Fucking kids.
Click to expand...

Immortal children that ask if you're here to lick their daddy's boots or to get out of their way before they beat you up. Why must they have brats that make you so angry that you want to put them down? The one kid to only mildly annoy me out of a Fallout/TES game was the Mick & Ralph's crier because he kept talking about Mick & Ralph's, still better than any kid in a Bethesdian game by a mile.
Click to expand...

They make a fucking asshole kid and make it impossible to kill him. What Bethesda humour is this?
Click to expand...

My friend made a theory that the sons and daughters of Bethesda employees are spoiled kids, so all kids in their games are spoiled.

It makes sense when you find out how kids in Fallout 3/Skyrim/etc were pretty much messed up.
 
For Settlement building to work it would need to be far more elaborate and complex than Bethesda is used to. I mean, one of the "settlements" is a trre house and another is a burnt out house (it seems). No idea how a Cul de Sac could even be considered a Settlement at all... But I guess we'll just have to wait and see how they fuck it up I mean, how they present it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top