Fallout 4 announced with official trailer

The funniest thing here is that Bethesda in fact made the Capital Wasteland into a dead, boring, endless desert. It's just brown, dry and sterile. New Vegas' Mojave desert actually has more vegetation than what you find in Fallout 3! In reality, D.C. has like 120 rainy days annually, on average, and abandoned to nature the area would very soon turn lush, green and overgrown. Regardless of radiation effects, if people can live unprotected in the locality, so could plants.

To me, this is a perfect example of why Bethesda shouldn't be allowed to make games they don't understand. Instead of actually giving the issue of D:C.'s climate and vegetation three seconds of thought, they just copied other post-apo (or is it post-post-apo? Now I'm confused...) settings like Fallout and Mad Max straight up and made D.C. all deserty, never realizing that those settings are arid because they actually take place in arid locations. Unlike D.C. Here Bethesda had a perfect opportunity to actually do something more original and interesting with the Capital Wasteland and really play around with the vegetation. Just look at the cool, overgrown areas you have in games like Wasteland 2 (both the Agri Center and LA) or Stalker (even if this takes place much closer in time to the apocalyptic event).

Moreover, it seems Bethesda is doing the same thing again with Fallout 4. In the trailer, I see nothing but dead trees (like 200 year old dead tree trunks would still be standing!) and dead grass. It's just boring. Why not milk the fall in Fallout to the max and set the game in a beautiful autumnal New England, where the majesty of nature is juxtaposed against the ugliness of man (or something trite like that, which even the average Beth fanboy could appreciate). But no, that would have been asking too much; post apocalyptia equals sterile desert. Period.

In fact, I'm starting to suspect that Toddy is severely pollen allergic and just hates vegetation in general.

 

Words.. We like 'em. We make them.. You can say 'Post-postapocalyptic' or a host of other descriptors to better distinguish the PostApocalyptic setting in each FO. However, @Gnarles Bronson correctly characterized the common use of the concepts provided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic_and_post-apocalyptic_fiction

As for this being Gnarles attempt to defend FO3, is just beyond your usual dumb.

 

This is basically what I was going to say, with regard to the tone especially. They can pan out from a TV whlie playing similar music all they want, yet I still don't sense a hint of the satire that should distinguish Fallout from the hordes of other post-nuclear offerings floating around. Also not particularly happy about the prewar stuff, though I can't pin down why, exactly. I mean, we all know there was a nuclear war, without being shown it, right? I don't need to see yet another mushroom cloud, and another sad radio broadcast, while the parents stand by a crib. That horse has been dead for decades now. They could've just spliced in the flaming playground from Terminator 2. Yesyes, oh the humanity!, but I've seen it all before. Aside from the too serious tone it sets, just seems like a rehash... But yeah, I'm willing to admit that I'll probably hate on any Bethesda Fallout. On the positive side, the engine looks like a definite improvement. Sort of surprised by the brightness of some of the colors, though, especially the Vault Dweller's jumpsuit at the end there. If I can just ignore that this is supposed to be part of an IP, I might actually enjoy exploring the world... IF they actually implement some improvements in the gameplay since Skyrim and FO3.

 

I think you're assuming they are different versions of the same game, which isn't information you have. Aside from that, how much time? How does time make a difference? If society is just starting to rebuild in 10 years, or 200 years, how does that matter thematically?

Was new vegas really not chaotic? The entire premise of the game is a change in status quo via war. Even at the lower levels like Good springs vs powder gangers, powder gangers vs NCR... everything was chaotic.

So nations come during PA or during PPA, the rebuilding of which during PA or PPA will be mundane but filled with a sense of danger due to the building of. Ok. I'm not seeing the difference between the two.

The dark ages had nations and wars and were making discoveries and building new things and were at times mundane, same with the wild west.

So PA sometimes deals with morality, but sometimes PPA does too. PPA is more likely to deal with political themes, but not necessarily. Again, I don't think there's a real difference. Fallout 3 had politics in it, New Vegas had morality. I don't see any real distinguishing characteristics you've made between the two that justify separate genres, just vagaries. I especially don't see enough to say that the four games are drastically different enough to qualify as different genres.

I've never seen Jericho, but I'm interested in any other fiction examples you could provide.

 

The difference is that the bronze and the iron age have clearly definable characteristics: the bronze age is characterized by the prevalence of bronze, and the iron age is characterized by the prevalence of iron; for different areas the two are clearly delineated by distinct periods of time (1200 to 1bc, for example). No one has yet said: PA has this clearly separable characteristic, while PPA has this clearly separable characteristic. You haven't in the above statement -- PPA have plant life? Farms? what exactly. I can't tell if you're just on a tirade of why FO3 was bad or why it's PPA or what you think.

And yes, calling it post apocalyptic makes perfect sense because that's what it is. You have society trying to pull itself together again after the apocalypse, which is a theme in all the games. The only time post apocalyptic isn't meaningful is when society has basically completely recovered. All the pieces are back into place -- the collapse is something which is completely irrelevant to the state of things-- ala futurama.

Wtf is it with people saying I'm trying to defend fallout 3? FO3 is a bad game. It's bad bad bad bad bad, and people say that I'm defending the game are dumb dumb dumb dumb.

Edit:

What I want is someone to say: Fallout 1 is (PA/PPA) due to this clearly distinguishable trait. Fallout 2 is (PA/PPA) due to this clearly distinguishable trait. Fallout 3 is (PA/PPA) due to this clearly distinguishable trait. Fallout NV is (PA/PPA) due to this clearly identifiable trait. (I'm not familar with the last of us because I'm not a peasant, or jericho, but otherwise try other fiction maybe)

Here's my example: This time period 2000-700 in china is clearly the bronze age due to the prevalence of bronze. There might be some overlap, like in the bronze age example, but if you can't provide concise reasons for distinguishing the two then I just can't see that they're worth distinguishing.

Anyway, I feel like a really dumb person having spent this much energy on a subject that doesn't really matter one way or another. Had a weird stressful week and think I'm just taking my frustrations out on the internet, why am I saying this I should go to bed. But hey, maybe I'm wrong, I'm interested in the answer if there is one. "the existence of nations" seems like a pretty good separator between the two that wasn't explicitly stated, but I'm not going to post anymore on the subject because I feel foolish.

 

Tim's watch

 

edit: Just seen Gnarles latest post. I can understand what you want, but I just gave assumptions from my point of view based on the name. I agree, it's rather silly now arguing over a word, and I'm going to refrain from posting. It's not an official term, so it's really up to the individual. Though 'presence of nations' seems to be the main factor that I would definitely say makes it PPA, or at the very least makes it lean towards it. Sorry to hear you're having a stressful week.

 

Today
More Fallout Expert/Fan/RPG Connoisseur Quotes;

"Fallout3 was truly one of the greatest achievements within the video game industry last generation. The transition from the first 2 games being overhead RPGs, and changing that to a first person action/adventure game (Oblivion treatmetn) is a similar achievement to Super Mario going from 2D to 3D gameplay."

"Fallout 3 is about finding your father, a renown scientist, and help him fulfill your mother's dream of building the Water Purifier in order for civilization to flourish and rebuild. It's a pivotal point in Fallout's lore and your character's role is a crucial one. Bethesda did an excellent job of reviving the franchise and you guys need to realize that. New Vegas would have never existed if it weren't for 3. Show some damn respect."

"PIVOTAL POINT IN FALLOUT LORE" lmfao.
OHH YEAH GUYS SHOW SOME FUCKING RESPECT TO THE TODD!!!!!!!!
IF IT WASN'T FOR Ambassador Todd THERE WOULD BE NO VAN BUREN....

"I've only played Fallout New Vegas but i'm planning on picking this up day one. So, is Fallout 3 worth picking up at this moment?"
Well actually i prefer fallout 3 beacuse the story is better. It actually makes you sad a few times."

"I hope you can get married and adopt children in FO4. (~^_^)~ I can see my character already!!! Now should I buy the xbox one version, or should I try converting to pc just so that I can try some mods????????"

"HE HAS A FUCKING VOICE NOW, finally. This looks so epic. Is there anybody on Earth that hasn't been waiting for this game for like ten years? Lol"

"I'm a big fallout fan but I have a few questions if anyone wants to answer. Why don't cars work? Why do TVs not work when radios do? I don't know those questions may seem stupid but I always wondered."

"i tried new vegas. As i love skyrim i am not sure new vegas didnt feel all there for me not sure why. Fallout 4 might be really good though, I hope there will be deep npc interaction and customizible character"

"Can I play this if I haven't played a fallout game before? And whats all the hype ive been watching trailers of fallout games recently I just dont see whats so great dont get me wront I like games like this I dont know errr anyone care ti comment? "
"Yes, you can play this game even if you haven't played a Fallout game before. There are no story connections between the games. As for the hype, people have been wanting this game for a long time now because so many people loved Fallout 3"

"i heard fallout 4 was really good but i was wondering about what kind of game it is, i have never played any of the other fallouts can someone tell me?" Its a massive open world Roll playing game which takes place after the nuclear war happened in a post apocalyptic setting, pretty much you roam around, do and kill anything you want and try to stay alive. i recommend playing fallout 3 before playing this one

"You do realise that there are way more BoS members in the US than in that tiny ass bunker right? You didn't even scratch the surface."


So I have never played any of the fallout games before, but this looks epic. Could anybody tell me if I should play any of the other games before this one, and if so which ones. And thanks in advance.?
Fallout 3 is an amazing game. I'd recommend you pick that up. By the way, don't pick up New Vegas over Fallout 3.
Thanks! Could you tell me why new Vegas isn't a good game?
Well, it wasn't developed by Bethesda. And, it just isn't very good, that's all. It's a matter of opinion. Fallout 3 is the best though, trust me.

"did they even play fallout 4 ? This is a huge leap for fallout standards. Besides I hear most of theese suckers complaining about ''yep. an'other stale fallout title with you and a dog going around'' or '' The same guitar and static tv intro, same game'' wtf. I swear some of the shit people are capapble. And they are probably the same kindof person that keeps buying COD every year without flinching for an instant. Talk about bigotry.
WOW ..THE IRONY OF THIS COMMENT.

 

Superb, until the ending; (which wasn't superb; but was okay).

I thought it was pathetic.

 

It would look like in The last of us I guess.

 

It made me sad, indeed.

 

I agree, the terrible writing and dialogue made me cry.

 

What the hell does this have to do with Fallout humor?
They were stretching it perhaps in Fallout 1 and 2 but they never went completely into retardo land like here; http://whatculture.com/gaming/before-fallout-4-15-best-franchise-missions-ever.php/6

 

That's about as sad as Kevin Eastman's apparent enthusiasm for the new Michael Bay Turtles.

 

It really surprised me that he complained about the settlements in F2, but no word about it on F3

 

While I agree that's poorly written and juvenile, I feel like there's almost something there worth salvaging -- the same with little lamplight. As a fan of 2 over 1 I like the sillier moments in fallout, and think maybe if those were both better written or maybe a little darker the settings themselves wouldnt have been as bad.

Maybe if little lamplight was a vault experiment which was rejuvenated with test tube babies or something. The older children had to leave the vault or risk extermination, like the sacrificial overseer vault in NV.

Maybe if the superheroes actually killed people or there was an actually dark moral motivation for both of their actions it would have been more believable than just the silly posturing they did.

 

Two things I am actually happy about here:
- Things are more colorful than Fallout 3. Though bright blue, spandex vault suit, not so crazy about that.
- It looks like an urban area with actual things to do, unlike DC. Not a lot of decent-sized cities in Fallout, so I can get behind that.

Reasons to be pessimistic:
- Skyrim came out a while after New Vegas, yet did not learn from any of the mechanical improvements that game made (for instance, the completely half-@ssed companion system), and IMO even backslid compared to Oblivion in some ways.
- Bethesda has been making more or less the same game, with graphical improvements, for like 20 years. F3 was the biggest departure from that, but they don't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to innovation. I remember the excitement I felt when the first Skyrim trailer came out, because it looked like such a big step forward. It was only later on that I realized that the trailer's editing was merely disguising the fact that nothing had changed at all.
- In general, I'm not against a voiced protagonist, but more voice acting means less reactivity and choice, because VO is expensive, and we've been seeing the results of that in Bethesda games ever since Morrowind. Considering how far they've been sliding away from the things that I like about RPGs, I'd almost be happier if they turned Fallout into an action series. Hmm, except that the action has been a notoriously weak element of their other games.

 

Fo is an action game, its just a bad one. You look at the state of most modern action games like tomb raider, and compare the fun just moving around that game was, and you realize action in beth games have barely evolved past doom.

 

Barely evolved past Doom?
Doom was so much superior to F3 I can't stress it enough (I'm talking about the action segments, writing and dialogues were a little bit better in F3). Combat in vanilla F3 and NV was awful and even with tons of mods it can't be great because of the engine (it can be made satisfactory enough, though)

 

Fo is not a Bethesda game; I'm sure you mean Fo3, which was a crappy franken-shooter with excellent ~though misguided art direction.