Fallout 4 announced with official trailer

Negative for the sake of negative? Didn't you read? VATS is a broken system, it gives the player a bunch of free actions with little actual consequence for using it. It shouldn't be there, if yo uare turning Fallout into a shooter then make it a shooter, the aiming system in the first 2 Fallouts was an abstraction for aiming carefully, i.e. of what you would be doing while just shooting with the mouse. I rather have no pseudo turn based mechanics at all if they are as poorly desined as VATS.

Project Nevada actually has a better alternative to the AP system the FPS Fallouts have by making certain special actions (Sprinting and tackling) and Bullet time consume AP while active. I would say maybe have special attacks with weapons that consume AP so the Ap bar would work as a sort of cool down and you would get access to regular attacks when out of AP.

 

I've never liked VATS. Makes the game too easy. I'd rather it just be a straight shooter with RPG elements and deep C&C mechanics.

In my current playthrough of New Vegas I've never once activated VATS.

 

With my Modded New Vegas I rather use my AP on Tackles and hauling ass.

 

In that case i'll have to disagree. While VATS is an obvious compromise and isn't perfect by a long shot, IMO FO3 and FO:NV were the better for it, if only for the ability to pause the action. I think VATS should be improved\expanded, not replaced with twitch mechanics which will set the franchise on a track for fast paced action. (something that even the moders can't help with)

 

I can't imagine playing only with VATS and watching rat's carcass falling on the ground for 3 seconds

 

Imagine if VATS was turn based 3rd person instead of a one sided cutscene

 

Only?

 

Feargus said they used very early Gambryo on Fallout 3.
So does that mean later years....they could have moved Fallout into the full fps/rpg but actually done right if they had money??
I suppose that makes arguments over iso vs. 3d/fps Beth vs. black isle irrelevant
Seems Fallout history goes down kind of the same paths only split with shitty Master Todd...

"Called Shots" Shooting people in the balls and eyes was fun with the creative descriptions....

"v.a.t.s." sucks it's a stupid name. The Fat Fuck Todd's bitch goes "hey Vault tec, everything must vault-tec"
......it's horrible and i fucking hate the cinematic bullshit. you can't shoot in the balls.
don't need kill cam, i hate how loud the effects of vats and its just to damn slow.
Cimematics in every video game....that shits for retarded gamers.

I think vats would actually work better if the game engine, physics and AI actually worked.
it might work if Master Todd actually gave the rest of the NPC/Creatures AP as well. but if you ever noticed you get bombarded with enemies..
the only thing vats does is slowtime down for your character... its fucking retarded.
If npc/creatures have any AP its minimal effecting.

I hate how stupid the pipboy is in F3..
its just retarded that you have to heal, level up, inventory and all that through the fucking pipboy.
its horrible to navigate.

 

No. Post modernism and post post modernism are real world time period reference descriptors; they are well established concepts which describe meaningful relationships in art. Post apocalyptic and post post apocalyptic are meaningless distinctions which have no artistic precedent. Saying that Fallout isn't post apoc is absurd, for one, when it's had that label since its inception -- and that's kind of how language works.

And you realize people built crops in mad max right? Is that not post apoc either?

The main problem I had, besides the pointless driveling, was the other guy was suggesting that FO3 was post apoc, and the other three were post post -- when, as I said before, there's no meaningful distinctions between the two which could be used to label one way or another. Roads were cleared, rubble was used to build new structures, and domesticated animals were raised in all four. Three didn't have crops, but I imagine that was due to laziness or over site of the programmers more than anything.

 

Fo3 acted like the war just happened, with it's intact ruins, people not even having thought of looting nearby buildings for supplies in 200 years, them not even knowing how to filter water, towns built around bombs, towns consisting of 2 houses and an over emphasis on the pre war world everywhere. Yo uare very much grasping at straws to defend 3. Post post apocalyptic might be technically post apocalyptic but to say they are the same is dumb, Post apoc covers the INMEDIATE aftermath, shit is destroyed people don't even know how to survive and the world is dead. Post Post apoc is after this period, people have already gottn the hang of surviving, nw civilizations ar being built, nw conflicts are brewing that ar removd from the apocalyptic event that caused everything and people have moved on. Mad Max actually went through Distopyan (1) - Posta Apocalyptic (2-3) and Post Post apocalyptic (Fury Road).

 

Nonsense. Says who? And I'm not "defending" fallout 3 in any way -- except right now I'll defend them for saying not knowing how to filter radiation from water is a pretty advanced concept.

But the fact is there are traders in 3, there are domesticated animals, there are rebuilt cities -- I'm honestly surprised how many people are defending this inanity. Saying Fallout 3 happened "IMMEDIATELY" (with obnoxious capitals intact) after the apocalypse is really ignorant.

 

Would you call CoD: Modern Warfare a "post- Bronze Age" game? You wouldn't be wrong to do so, but it's not actually a useful or correct in terms of specifics of the game. "Post Bronze Age" implies the Bronze Age just happened.

 

I agree, calling CoD: Modern Warfare a "post- Bronze Age" game, and calling fallout 1 a post post apocalypse game are both pointless distinctions.

The only possible distinction I can see that could have any value is having a genre called "apocalyptic fiction", where the apocalypse is happening right now, air sirens are going off, the bombs are dropping, and people are trying to hiding in caves or whatever trying to survive as it is happening, and post apocalyptic fiction where the bombs have dropped and society is starting to rebuild. But post and post post are meaningless, and every fallout game including three are post apocalyptic.

 

Post apocalyptic implies The Road. I don't know whether Fo1 is post or post post- considering the war was only a few generations ago I would say post, but Fo2 is certainly post post apocalyptic. Things are being rebuilt.

 

Pointless? But NV and FO3 are clearly very different games, with different themes. Putting them both under the same label does them a disservice. The distinction says in one word the place on a timeline, the setting, and the thematic direction.

 

Ok, tell me, what exactly does it say about the timeline, the setting, and the thematic direction? Game X is post apocalyptic, and game Y is post post apocalyptic; tell me what you can infer about the two based on that alone.

I agree that 3 and NV were clearly different games, just not that the timeline in relation to the apocalypse had anything to do with it. NV was a political intrigue game where your actions effected political outcomes. 3 was a save the world game where you were trying to fix a machine. The plot of either could easily be switched to either game: "In NV you try and help mister house fix the water purifier so New Vegas can be a lush green garden, and save it from the evil Brotherhood of steel that want to hide the advanced technology from mankind." "In FO3 you are helping determine the direction of the Capital Wasteland! Do you help the tyranical Enclave maintain there control and order of wasteland, or do you help your brave dad who wants to spread the democracy of Rivet city."

Again, there are governments in FO3 (the boat thing had a council, which you could effect in quest). I don't see how slaver armies are relevant to the discussion, but the enclave had an army. There were also merchant caravans in 3.

If you want to say post post apocalyptic is a sub genre of apocalyptic (with the opposite being near apocalyptic I suppose), I have no problem with that in theory -- the problem is there are no real reason to. There are no real clear thematic differences, there's no real reason for its existence as a term. There are no dividing lines. "Post post apocalyptic, is like farther from the apocalypse dude!" Ok, how much farther? Is sady shands post apocalyptic and NCR post post apocalyptic? Sady shands thematically had problems with its neighboring settlements in one and two.

And the farther away you get from the apocalypse the less and less meaning the term "post apocalyptic" has. The TV show futurama was technically post apocalyptic, but no one would use that term to describe it because it had virtually no impact on the stories.

 

There's a reason to use it as a term: To differentiate between two different periods of time. To just lump hundreds of years together can and will lead to confusion. You wouldn't lump the Bronze Age and Iron Age together. That would be absurd. Using "post post" does looks silly, but we don't have a name for this far off futuristic period of time. And no, calling it post apocalyptic doesn't make any sense. Again, this is a whole new period of time. 3's world design is a muddled mess at best. There are junk towns, but nothing like what is hinted at in New Vegas. We're talking huge nations, not rinky dinky settlements that seem to have food aplenty in a barren world. 3 should have shown a world that was more like New Vegas: farms, plant life, fleshed-out settlements, and the end of the frontier and the return to civilization.

 

If this were two games I had no idea about apart from the labels, I would assume there is a noticeable time difference between the two, or different amounts of time have passed since the apocalypse. The setting, in post apocalyptic, would be chaotic and undefined, due to there being no nations or countries anymore. These would be formed either during or before the PPA setting, which would be more ordered, and in some ways mundane, while maintaining some sense of danger due to the process of rebuilding. PA settings are the Dark Ages, while PPA is the Wild West, so to speak. And thematically, PA would deal with individual themes, such as morality and determination, while PPA is more likely to deal with political themes. Sometimes, it's more the execution of the themes, as they both tend to deal with moral ambiguity, but in a different context.

These are basic assumptions based on my past experience with both sub-genres, though. I remember one TV show, Jericho, started as post-apocalyptic and as it went on became post post-apocalyptic. All while covering the space of several years. So sometimes the assumptions don't fit, but the labels help you build a picture, and make it easier to describe.

 

I don't think it's silly at all. There's a reason we use the term Post-post-apocalyptic. As you say, New Vegas isn't really definable as post-apocalyptic, in the sense that it's quite a different setting compared to the mad max movies or classic fallouts. So it's not like they just added another 'post-' for shits and giggles.