Fallout 4 announced with official trailer

[WittyUsername]

I mentioned why in the post above this one.

Internet's incredible, isn't it? Two people can post at the exact same time. Take ours, for example, "Today, 08:49 PM." Incredible.

Regardless, I get that. Hell, I was like you, had the same opinion.

Introduced to Fallout by 3. New Vegas interested me a lot less, namely for the "desert, desert, desert" thing.

But where we differ is my going through and playing 1 and 2. 1 and 2 is similar to Mojave, large streams of nothing and then coming up to settlements. That's the West Coast for you. Aside from certain areas like Boneyard and San Fransisco, that's the way it is.

You're right, DC does feel more post-apocalyptic, but it's also 200 years AFTER the bombs went off, it should be fixed up by now. Especially when everyone, not including Lone Wanderer, seems to be a scientist. If this was like twenty years i'd be more lenient.

Also, Mojave vs DC, you know what's different about the two? Mojave is sand and nothing to do, and DC is smashed up buildings with nothing to do.

 

[ToddIsMyHeroTESRulez]

I've said this before, but Fallout 3 is really the only post-apocalyptic entry in the series. The first two games and New Vegas are definitely post-post-apocalyptic. The FO series isn't so much about individuals recovering from the apocalypse (like most post-apocalyptic fiction, e.g. The Last of Us), the series is about how civilisation recovers from the apocalypse. It's about how even after a catastrophic event like the Great War, humanity nevertheless continues to cultivate conflict. It's ironic, really: rather than learn from the devastation of the Great War, humanity tries to decide how to recover from the aforementioned devastation by waging more wars. That is why "war never changes". Civilisation is cyclic.

This is one of the major reasons many of the older fans consider FO3 "not a real Fallout game". FO3's a different breed.

Alduin and Todd say differently..

 

[Chud]

One thing I liked about New Vegas's map compared to Fallout 3's, is that it feels more logical. You'll follow a crumbling highway, pass a gas station and other pit stops on your way to a settlement. 3 drove me nuts with wandering all over this grey rubble, only to stumble upon an intact building out in the middle of nowhere. That happened far too often, and made the setting less believable. I'm fine with traveling through a natural desert, which has fruit and nuts to pick along the way. I'm not fine with sporadic destruction in a location that shouldn't have any buildings left standing.

 

[Earth]

I fucking hated the Mojave.


DAT ATMOSPHERE!!!

And I hated the Capitol Wasteland. Aren't subjective opinions fun?
I hated how the Downtown DC area looked like it had only been hit by the blitz. To me, true atmosphere would've come from walking for miles in empty desert, to see in the horizon the Washington Monument, the only building to somehow have survived the nuclear blast. So naturally you walk towards it. Maybe there's a town there, or maybe it's just abandoned and empty like everything else. To me, that's post-nuclear war atmosphere, not DID YOU SEE THAT MOMENT WHEN I ENTERED THE WASTELAND FOR THE FIRST TIME AND MY EYES HAD TO ADJUST?! DAT ATMOSPHERE!

But again, as people have pointed out, Fallout is post-post apocalyptia. It's not about survival in the formidable wasteland. It's about people building societies in the formidable wasteland, something New Vegas (imo) did perfectly, with the NCR, New Vegas and Legion established, as well as the Khans, the tribes of Honest Hearts, the Boomers, Bright's Ghoul cult of the Far Beyond, the Brotherhood of Steel and Enclave Remnants and Super Mutant territories.

To answer your other point, a voiced protagonist could, COULD, be done well. But by Bethesda? Not a chance.

 

[peadar87]

Unlike a lot of people here, I don't really mind if Fallouts aren't pure RPGs. I wouldn't mind a good FPS, or RTS, MMOG or even something vehicle-based like the planned Resource Wars game was going to be, set in the Fallout universe.

Of course, the keyword there is good.

 

[Akratus]

Anyone who thinks Fallout 3 had good atmosphere either didn't factor in the lack of realistic infrastructure, society, you get the point. Or, they have viridiphilia.

 

[fred2]

Anyone who thinks Fallout 3 had good atmosphere either didn't factor in the lack of realistic infrastructure, society, you get the point. Or, they have viridiphilia.

Again realism ad nauseam... either you guys aren't bright or intentionally obtuse to reality of open-world games because its FO3

 

[Hassknecht]

Dunno, it strains my suspension of disbelief quite a bit when the settlements don't make any sense at all. Of course it doesn't need to be hyper-realistic. Since Fallout's world doesn't work like ours, that would be pointless, anyway. But it should have some internal logic.

 

[ChildServices]

Unlike a lot of people here, I don't really mind if Fallouts aren't pure RPGs. I wouldn't mind a good FPS, or RTS, MMOG or even something vehicle-based like the planned Resource Wars game was going to be, set in the Fallout universe.

Of course, the keyword there is good.

Pretty much this, to be honest. I actually prefer New Vegas' overall gameplay over all of the others, and after a significant amount of mods (mostly gameplay and cosmetic stuff, but I've got one or two quest mods as well) it's good enough to be my favourite in the series.

The thing about FO3 was that it played like complete ass even when you try to get yourself past its lore breaks, the bad dialogue, and the awful story. They actually legit released a slow-walker FPS in 2008 without iron sights in it (and which also isn't in the Halo franchise) and tried to base it around this godawful "WATCH THE SAME KILLCAM FOOTAGE 10,000 TIMES IN A ROW" mechanic. So long as the gunplay for Fallout 4 has improved from Fallout 3 to be at least at the standards of New Vegas, and so long as they haven't done something stupid by adding Skyrim's skill/perk trees and so long as they leave SPECIAL in it so it at least retains some vague aspect of an RPG, I think there'll be enough of a game left that somebody more responsible with the Fallout franchise can salvage it for a decent spinoff.

 

[Bernard Bumner's corpse]

Again realism ad nauseam... either you guys aren't bright or intentionally obtuse to reality of open-world games because its FO3

Realism is probably the wrong word, but plausibility is certainly required, and I'm sure is what people are getting at. I don't think anyone expects the world to be fully realised, but it does need to make more sense.

The F3 world was often a theme-park confection of distinctive and separate archetypical locations, interspersed with generic resource caches. The most distinctive places often had little good reason to exist, a poor connection to their immediate surroundings, and no real means of supporting their existence. That is a problem in an open world, and if you're not being carried along by the writing or at least by some satisfying interaction with the landscape as you travel, it can become very noticeable. Skyrim gets away with a lot, simply because the world is fairly lush and it feels as though that vibrancy could support life. The Capital Wasteland is a dead place, and there aren't even enough unbelievably fresh apples to support a small fraction of the sparse population.

The problems were much more apparent to me as I revisited places - I take a slow, completist approach to games, and something that perhaps just seemed unsubtle on first visit, quickly became jarringly annoying on second or third visit.

I don't think the world design is terrible, but it is weak, and it is another problem to add to a long list of weaknesses; death by a thousand cuts. NV managed to accomplish much more using the same set of tools, and the overall much more satisfying experience was achieved by a series of relatively small improvements coupled with generally much stronger writing.

 

[Akratus]

Anyone who thinks Fallout 3 had good atmosphere either didn't factor in the lack of realistic infrastructure, society, you get the point. Or, they have viridiphilia.

Again realism ad nauseam... either you guys aren't bright or intentionally obtuse to reality of open-world games because its FO3

Which of the 4 main Fallout games does NOT have:

-Sources of food, water, resources for people, at least in towns
-Sizeable populations for the urban locations
-Believable degredation/scavenging of pre-war materials

Hmmm?

You HAVE to ignore that to BELIEVE the atmosphere.

The atmosphere ONLY works if you either don't know or you have very selective headcanon.

I'm not intrigued OR scared/nervous around the Deathclaw place in F3 because I KNOW it's just the designated Death Claw spot that the devs picked to place these high level enemies as a challenge, MORESO than integrating it into the environment. The Super Mutants, Super Mutant Vault, Brotherhood Of Steel, Outcasts, the Radio, NONE of it was integrated into the environment. It was plunked there as a set piece in the theme park that is Fallout 3.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

This is one of the major reasons many of the older fans consider FO3 "not a real Fallout game". FO3's a different breed.

I have been a FO fan for a long time, and have literally never heard an "older fan" use that reason for considering FO3 not a real Fallout game.

 

[farchettiensis]

It doesn't seem too much of a departure from F3 or maybe even from NV. I suppose that, in a way, this is a good thing, but it's also worrying. Will it be more of the same in a different scenario and just a pretext to do a new game, rather an actual plot? I get the feeling that a lot of the things I appreciated in NV won't be there, I'm afraid, such as the diversity of factions. I was hoping they would be further developed as the franchise developed new games.

I had high expectations, but I wasn't very excited as I watched the trailer. I was also hoping that the graphics would look more advanced, sort of, at least. Hope I'm wrong in all these aspects.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

i think best to tamper your graphics expectations, pretty clear we're getting skyrim with guns. That being said, skyrim doesn't look that bad even after all this time.

 

[Caeo]

This is one of the major reasons many of the older fans consider FO3 "not a real Fallout game". FO3's a different breed.

I have been a FO fan for a long time, and have literally never heard an "older fan" use that reason for considering FO3 not a real Fallout game.

Really? I feel as if that's what everyone's been getting at when they critique FO3 (besides the game making no sense whatsoever and lacking any sort of competent writing). FO3 is very dark and edgy, but in a melodramatic, teenage wet-dream sort of way. It's got vampires for God's sake. (Which also makes me wonder: what's up with Bethesda's infatuation with vampires? First the Family and then Dawnguard? Are they trying to cash in on the Twilight/50 Shades fad or something?) The original two games and New Vegas are dark as well, but in a different way. They have a lot of black humour and they've got a certain (intellectual?) maturity to them which FO3 lacks.

I should've probably expanded my statement with "I think that this is one of the major reasons many of the older fans consider FO3 'not a real Fallout game'; FO3 completely misses the spirit of the original two." I could be wrong, as it's been some time since I've played all four games, but I feel that the above is a fairly solid assertion.

 

[Crni Vuk]

This is one of the major reasons many of the older fans consider FO3 "not a real Fallout game". FO3's a different breed.

I think most of us that don't like F3, dont like F3 because it simply put is not a good RPG.

It's a half decent FPS though.

Anyone who thinks Fallout 3 had good atmosphere either didn't factor in the lack of realistic infrastructure, society, you get the point. Or, they have viridiphilia.

Again realism ad nauseam... either you guys aren't bright or intentionally obtuse to reality of open-world games because its FO3

Whooopsies! Someone mistook realism for verisimilitude.

Easy to confuse it. But it's really not the same!

See realism is something that you find in simulations. Actions which are based on physics and it's rules. Like the balistics of bullets, the proper armor and penetration of objects like tanks, correct speed, gravity etc. You get the picture. And it is true, a Fallout game, doesn't need perfect realism to be a good Fallout game.

Verisimiltude on the other hand is something that falls under suspencion of disbelief. For example if you're calling a battle between 10-15 people a civil war than you're breaking the verisimiltude - Bethesda loves to do this. And if you're reading most of the dialogues in Fallout 3 from Eden or three dog it is outright dumb even.

 

[ToddIsMyHeroTESRulez]

Fallout 3 is a game for people with Aspergers Syndrome....playing Fallout 3 is like trying to have a conversation with an Asperger
it's a huge world with nothing coherent to ....nothing important to say, boring and dull. but still shoved in your face..

 

[Walpknut]

You have some wierd fixation with autism and Aspergers...

 

[Crni Vuk]

there you can see what kind of damage Fallout 3 can do to you!

 

[Chud]

One thing that makes me happy about the trailer, is that you can see the I'm S.P.E.C.I.A.L. book in the baby's room. Stats have not gone away, it looks like. The magazine rack held the findable stat books, and the parts cabinet showed a wide selection of perk icons. It's still an RPG/FPS hybrid at the very least. To what extent the RPG half will play like, is anyone's guess.