Fallout 4 announced with official trailer

[Vault11]

"Fuck them for this trailer"? Seriously? For a trailer? You want them to fuck themselves for it? Seriously? You have lost all credibility immediately.

No, I do not want them to literally fuck themselves. You are either a dimwit or being intentionally obstuse; either way, I'll spell it out for you. "Based on what Bethesda thought was important to showcase in one of the biggest games they have ever released, their selling points failed to meet my expectations. I am now disappointed in the company for not displaying things in the game that I find important, and for displaying things I find trival and unimportant."

Everything else you said is pure speculation verging on slander about a product that has not been released. You know literally nothing about this game, so all your bitching and swearing are ludicrous. Chill out before you have a fuckin stroke.

Thanks for coming out.

No, sorry. It's not speculation "verging on slander". It's called a calculated opinion. Has Bethesda dumbed down RPG elements in both TES and Fallout from their original conceptions? Yes, this is a fact. Was Skyrim, their most famous, popular game, vastly more simple than it's predecessor? Yes, this is a fact. Was it easier for a more diverse audience of all types to get into the game because it was so simple, as not to drive away with complexity or obscurity? This is a commonly held conception. Now why would it stand to reason that they would abandon that model of doing things when

1. They have been doing it for years and years
2. They, as a large developer and business, are interested in making money first and foremost and
3. Simplification to mediocrity, also called "mass appeal", is one of the ways to achieve the goal of more money
4. Therefore, it is reasonable that they would do what has got them more money in the past (like dumbing down dialogue and skill system) to Fallout in order to
5. Make more money

Furthermore, all companies operate on a limited budget, and money poured into a project is often a zero-sum game. If more money goes to making visuals and graphics look good, that is neccesarily money taken away from another, and in my opinion, more important factor instead.

That calculated, informed opinion covers the gameplay elements as to what is most likely going to be the result. Now how about what the trailer did show us? Boston as a location - I hate it. Not speculation. The cartoony color palette - I hate it. Not speculation. The dog companion being rehashed, the Wanderer wearing a vault suit being rehashed - I hate it. Not speculation. The fact that the protagonist character speaks for the first time with voice acting in the series history, strongly implying a voiced main character - I hate it. Not speculation. Etc., etc.

In any case, it's all about examining what is likely. Did they ressurect Edgar Allan Poe to write sharp, verbose dialog, or did they do what they did the last 5 times and just give it to whoever without much work being put into it? Did they expand SPECIAL with more detail and balance, or did they simplify it so more people find it accessable, after the simplified Skyrim helped make them a bajillion dollars? Use your brain when it comes to this "speculation".

 

[Robb Stark]

In regards to Walpknuts response there is an explanation but it's still incredibly absurd and there plenty of non special encounter fourth wall breaks and well aliens.

All I'm saying its wacky as is and people shouldn't take it too seriously. I mean fallout 2 contradicts fallout 1 in terms of lore and etc.

Honestly, I'm personally excited for the game. I just wish people would have a more constructive discussion then the typical bickering and hostility,

 

[Hellion]

Honestly, I'm personally excited for the game. I just wish people would have a more constructive discussion then the typical bickering and hostility,

Once again: the only "hostility" I've seen is here is, oddly enough, SOLELY directed towards people who have expressed that *gasp!* they didn't particularly like the trailer. And only coming from 3-4 specific users, 3 of whom only registered 2 days ago so that they could express their opinion that "people who didn't like the trailer are the worst and need to grow up".

You liked what you saw? Good for you, no-one's gonna roast you until you convert to the "one true opinion". However, saying that "the stuff shown in the trailer didn't particularly excite me, and, based on the proven historical record of all Bethesda games, I expect the game to be mediocre in regards to my tastes" is not "bickering", it is actually an equally valid opinion.

Yes, IT IS possible for someone not to like a Bethesda game, believe it or not.

 

[Walpknut]

No it's not absurd because it fits into pre-stablished lore and even expands it. Comparing that to people aparently surviving for 200 years without farming and without scavenging food in ruins around them is completely dumb. And the special encounters in 2 are non canon so trying to use them as a defense to 3 is even dumber.

 

[Robb Stark]

How does talking to your brain fit with lore?

Because by stating that your saying the series already threw logic out the window.

How is it your brain has a differing personality then your courier and speaks in a British accent.

Your brain is YOU so how is it your possibly alive and holding a conversation with your brain.

Please show how this is all realistically possibly yet if any Bethesda made fallout game did it would be crazy and unrealistic.

 

[Robb Stark]

Also I wasn't talking about special
encounters. Go to new Reno with enclavepower armor.

 

[peadar87]

How does talking to your brain fit with lore?

Because by stating that your saying the series already threw logic out the window.

How is it your brain has a differing personality then your courier and speaks in a British accent.

Your brain is YOU so how is it your possibly alive and holding a conversation with your brain.

Please show how this is all realistically possibly yet if any Bethesda made fallout game did it would be crazy and unrealistic.

I agree, I loved New Vegas, loved OWB, thought the whole overarching theme of obsession and letting go of the past was wonderful and really well-played, but I didn't like the "talking to your brain" part. I thought the lobotomy, brain gets taken down some tubes, can still communicate with body through solenoids angle was a bit too much. In my headcanon, I ignored it. Same as how I loved Dead Money, but didn't like the borderline magical vending machines that can make anything you want out of individual atoms (so retconned them in my head to some sort of pneumatic tube system linked to a central store).

Just because I think FO3 was profoundly stupid in places doesn't mean I have to defend the everything in the other games in the series to death.

 

[Robb Stark]

@peadar87 Old world blues was fantastic and so were the other DLC's (fuck dead money btw)

 

[Continental Op]

How does talking to your brain fit with lore?

Because by stating that your saying the series already threw logic out the window.

How is it your brain has a differing personality then your courier and speaks in a British accent.

Your brain is YOU so how is it your possibly alive and holding a conversation with your brain.

Please show how this is all realistically possibly yet if any Bethesda made fallout game did it would be crazy and unrealistic.

But all the stuff you're referencing from older games is tongue in cheek(for a lack of a better phrase that I can think of), and the game is basically telling you that it doesn't make sense, but that you should go along with it. Compared to a lot of the fallout 3 stuff, which was not intentionally ridiculous or nonsensical, the argument doesn't really hold up. And even then, quite a few people from what I've gathered aren't too keen on that sort of humour and content. Overall, the talking brain is a matter of taste and sense of humour. Fallout 3's mistakes are just that, mistakes which break the suspension of disbelief for some people, with none of the self-awareness that excuses the former somewhat. I don't really see it as a double standard between the old games and the new, but that's my opinion.

 

[mef]

Old World Blues was like Failout 3's embassy in New Vegas, although it actually had some fun concept.
Btw, F3 had things like super mutant behemoth, isn't it somehow similiar to talking scorpion playing chess and the gang of elvises controlling a town? I mean, it is explainable and not just fantasy, but still.

 

[Crni Vuk]

How does talking to your brain fit with lore?

Because by stating that your saying the series already threw logic out the window.

How is it your brain has a differing personality then your courier and speaks in a British accent.

Your brain is YOU so how is it your possibly alive and holding a conversation with your brain.

Please show how this is all realistically possibly yet if any Bethesda made fallout game did it would be crazy and unrealistic.

New Vegas was closer to Fallout 2 than Fallout 1. Some of the DLCs contained a few of the really whacky stuff, but they are after all just DLCs. The game for it self, New Vegas, was different in tone to Fallout 3, much closer to the original games for sure. If only for the fact that you had a lot more ways to interact with the world how you as the player saw fitt.

Albeit there is no doubt that we will never ever see a Fallout game that really follows the footsteps of Fallout 1/2. And I don't mean this only thematically but also from the gameplay and visuals. I don't know why people think that first person gameplay and and open worlds in particular are the pinacle of RPG evolution.

It is a very popular choice right now, hence why we see so many sand box/open world games on the horizon. And I certainly see why. It can be very fun and awesome. If used correctly. But at the end of the day it stays a design choice and about popularity. Arguing from that point one could also get the idea to create the next Doom game as Civilisation game with the exact same gameplay and view, just because it eventually became extremely popular - following every new thing just because it is popular is one sure way to kill diversity, something that was once very big in gaming.

I know why Beth is doing the things they do. They do what they do best. And they know their target audience very well. Fallout, the original, are niche games. Very good in their field. But still niche titles. If you compare it to titles like Diablo 2 for example which was always aiming at a broader audience. There is no way that you can sell such a concept to one of the bigger publishers really, at least not if you really want to follow the originals, because in their eyes Call of Duty is the way to go - and I can see why, easy to make sells, easy to consume and it sells millions of units. A concept like Fallout is better suited as a kick starter project where you can work relatively independly, like Wasteland 2.

Or just some random type of zombi-like mutant.

My bet is on re-skinned ghouls, or ghouls with a different power than the two types we found in previous fallouts

Albino ghouls!

 

[ExplodesLikeABloodSausage]

Once again: the only "hostility" I've seen is here is, oddly enough, SOLELY directed towards people who have expressed that *gasp!* they didn't particularly like the trailer. And only coming from 3-4 specific users, 3 of whom only registered 2 days ago so that they could express their opinion that "people who didn't like the trailer are the worst and need to grow up".

You liked what you saw? Good for you, no-one's gonna roast you until you convert to the "one true opinion". However, saying that "the stuff shown in the trailer didn't particularly excite me, and, based on the proven historical record of all Bethesda games, I expect the game to be mediocre in regards to my tastes" is not "bickering", it is actually an equally valid opinion.

Yes, IT IS possible for someone not to like a Bethesda game, believe it or not.

You apparently selectively skip replies to people who are posting their positive opinions towards F4 and previously F3. If you were actually reading them, you would have no basis for your first sentence. I suggest you go back and actually read the forum again before you attempt to engage further in an advanced activity such as typing on a keyboard.

In reference to your snide remark about "people who registered 2 days ago", with the implication that people who newly registered are Bethesda "fanboys", I have been registered on NMA since 2006 (9 Years ago if you cant count), and actually was reading NMA way before that as a lurker. Don't confuse low post counts with longevity. I post when I see hypocrisy, idiocy, and whiny bitching.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Personally I always thought Old World Blues would have been better that rather than your brain your lost your body, and now had to insert you brain in various bodies on storage, each with their own SPECIAL build and various skills.
That could have led to some funny and interesting situations for the player to fool around with.

The DLC would have ended with the player having to reclaim his/her body from one of the Think Tank members.

 

[ExplodesLikeABloodSausage]

No, I do not want them to literally fuck themselves. You are either a dimwit or being intentionally obstuse; either way, I'll spell it out for you. "Based on what Bethesda thought was important to showcase in one of the biggest games they have ever released, their selling points failed to meet my expectations. I am now disappointed in the company for not displaying things in the game that I find important, and for displaying things I find trival and unimportant."

No, sorry. It's not speculation "verging on slander". It's called a calculated opinion. Has Bethesda dumbed down RPG elements in both TES and Fallout from their original conceptions? Yes, this is a fact. Was Skyrim, their most famous, popular game, vastly more simple than it's predecessor? Yes, this is a fact. Was it easier for a more diverse audience of all types to get into the game because it was so simple, as not to drive away with complexity or obscurity? This is a commonly held conception. Now why would it stand to reason that they would abandon that model of doing things when

1. They have been doing it for years and years
2. They, as a large developer and business, are interested in making money first and foremost and
3. Simplification to mediocrity, also called "mass appeal", is one of the ways to achieve the goal of more money
4. Therefore, it is reasonable that they would do what has got them more money in the past (like dumbing down dialogue and skill system) to Fallout in order to
5. Make more money

Furthermore, all companies operate on a limited budget, and money poured into a project is often a zero-sum game. If more money goes to making visuals and graphics look good, that is neccesarily money taken away from another, and in my opinion, more important factor instead.

That calculated, informed opinion covers the gameplay elements as to what is most likely going to be the result. Now how about what the trailer did show us? Boston as a location - I hate it. Not speculation. The cartoony color palette - I hate it. Not speculation. The dog companion being rehashed, the Wanderer wearing a vault suit being rehashed - I hate it. Not speculation. The fact that the protagonist character speaks for the first time with voice acting in the series history, strongly implying a voiced main character - I hate it. Not speculation. Etc., etc.

In any case, it's all about examining what is likely. Did they ressurect Edgar Allan Poe to write sharp, verbose dialog, or did they do what they did the last 5 times and just give it to whoever without much work being put into it? Did they expand SPECIAL with more detail and balance, or did they simplify it so more people find it accessable, after the simplified Skyrim helped make them a bajillion dollars? Use your brain when it comes to this "speculation".

Your first sentence is much improved and less like a monkey with brain damage

You call it "calculated opinion" I call it speculation verging on slander. blah blah blah boils down to the same shit, and I repeat it is ALL speculation, every single word.

 

[Robb Stark]

@The Dutch Ghost

That would be awesome

 

[Hassknecht]

All in all I actually like the trailer, after seeing it a few times. The beginning it very much what I expected it to be, really. The prospect of a voiced protagonist doesn't shock me all that much, Boston is a cool enough setting and even though quite a bit looks very much like Fallout 3, it has its positive moments. I just love Blade Runner too much to not be excited about the billions of Blade Runner references that are going to be in this one
Now, I disliked Fallout 3 very much (replayed it just recently, and it kinda got even worse. The writing is just atrocious, although some parts might be attributed to the horrendous german dubbing), but I did like Skyrim. So, I'm somewhat excited. Not hyped, but mildly euphoric. It's another Fallout game, after all.

 

[Hellion]

Once again: the only "hostility" I've seen is here is, oddly enough, SOLELY directed towards people who have expressed that *gasp!* they didn't particularly like the trailer. And only coming from 3-4 specific users, 3 of whom only registered 2 days ago so that they could express their opinion that "people who didn't like the trailer are the worst and need to grow up".

You liked what you saw? Good for you, no-one's gonna roast you until you convert to the "one true opinion". However, saying that "the stuff shown in the trailer didn't particularly excite me, and, based on the proven historical record of all Bethesda games, I expect the game to be mediocre in regards to my tastes" is not "bickering", it is actually an equally valid opinion.

Yes, IT IS possible for someone not to like a Bethesda game, believe it or not.

You apparently selectively skip replies to people who are posting their positive opinions towards F4 and previously F3. If you were actually reading them, you would have no basis for your first sentence. I suggest you go back and actually read the forum again before you attempt to engage further in an advanced activity such as typing on a keyboard.

In reference to your snide remark about "people who registered 2 days ago", with the implication that people who newly registered are Bethesda "fanboys", I have been registered on NMA since 2006 (9 Years ago if you cant count), and actually was reading NMA way before that as a lurker. Don't confuse low post counts with longevity. I post when I see hypocrisy, idiocy, and whiny bitching.

...And, once again, "hostility towards someone who thinks different than you do". Didn't expect anything different, of course.

Whatever, I won't spend time to argue with you. We all love you and hope your magnificent posts continue to enlighten our bitchy ways <3

PS. I've been registered and lurking for 3 years longer than you, so I have a pretty good grasp on low postcounts. But anyway.

 

[mdf_365]

snipped

New Vegas was closer to Fallout 2 than Fallout 1. Some of the DLCs contained a few of the really whacky stuff, but they are after all just DLCs. The game for it self, New Vegas, was different in tone to Fallout 3, much closer to the original games for sure. If only for the fact that you had a lot more ways to interact with the world how you as the player saw fitt.

Albeit there is no doubt that we will never ever see a Fallout game that really follows the footsteps of Fallout 1/2. And I don't mean this only thematically but also from the gameplay and visuals. I don't know why people think that first person gameplay and and open worlds in particular are the pinacle of RPG evolution.

It is a very popular choice right now, hence why we see so many sand box/open world games on the horizon. And I certainly see why. It can be very fun and awesome. If used correctly. But at the end of the day it stays a design choice and about popularity. Arguing from that point one could also get the idea to create the next Doom game as Civilisation game with the exact same gameplay and view, just because it eventually became extremely popular - following every new thing just because it is popular is one sure way to kill diversity, something that was once very big in gaming.

I know why Beth is doing the things they do. They do what they do best. And they know their target audience very well. Fallout, the original, are niche games. Very good in their field. But still niche titles. If you compare it to titles like Diablo 2 for example which was always aiming at a broader audience. There is no way that you can sell such a concept to one of the bigger publishers really, at least not if you really want to follow the originals, because in their eyes Call of Duty is the way to go - and I can see why, easy to make sells, easy to consume and it sells millions of units. A concept like Fallout is better suited as a kick starter project where you can work relatively independly, like Wasteland 2.

Format doesn't really matter to me, if the game is good. The Fallout universe has a great collection of elements that can be placed in a number of game types. Just have fun with it ya know?

For hardline old-schoolers: what are you doing to cope with the fact that there are now going to be more FPS-style games then Iso/turn-based style games?

Edit: should have clarified that last question only pertained to Fallout games, not the entire industry! I see a significant amount if Iso dev going on lately too.

 

[calajira]

For hardline old-schoolers: what are you doing to cope with the fact that there are now going to be more FPS-style games then Iso/turn-based style games?

Odd. Reads like a question from ten years ago. Today, we have a lot more Iso style games then 5-10 years ago. Heck, there were no Iso style games 5-10 years ago. Now we have Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity and the new Torment comming up. Not turn-based, but oh well - I think 20 years after the hay days of turn-based games, getting our own little niche is more then I ever dared to dream.

 

[valcik]

For hardline old-schoolers: what are you doing to cope with the fact that there are now going to be more FPS-style games then Iso/turn-based style games?

I've focused my interest on smaller indie developers and upcoming games as Underrail or Age of Decadence. Morrowind was the last bethesdian game I've played and I'm not going to buy any other bethesdian stuff, ever. Todd won't fool me again!