Fallout 4 teased? Three Dog returning

-Good writing / Story arc
-Good Dialogue
-Decisions that have lasting consequences over the game world
-Good quest design-with branching arcs
-Quality FACTIONS
-etc
Click to expand...

Except Bethesda does none of these things. If they do a Fallout 4, rest assured it will be FO3 with a new coat of paint, a few changes to make it more like Skyrim, and maybe slightly better writing and moral ambiguity (basing myself on the Oblivion-Skyrim transition). They will never go the New Vegas or, heavens forbid, Fo1 and 2 route. It's not what their fanbase wants, it,s not what they do, period.
 
Except Bethesda does none of these things. If they do a Fallout 4, rest assured it will be FO3 with a new coat of paint, a few changes to make it more like Skyrim, and maybe slightly better writing and moral ambiguity (basing myself on the Oblivion-Skyrim transition). They will never go the New Vegas or, heavens forbid, Fo1 and 2 route. It's not what their fanbase wants, it,s not what they do, period.
Click to expand...

Things never change, until they do.
We will just have to wait and see if those things improve in the next game. Or we can argue in circles about was has happened in the past another 100 times. There aren't enough threads like those on here, right?
 
I tend to think they might take a few good ideas from New Vegas, if not, then fuck them. Gods honest truth, I will play the game to death because I'm a hardcore Fallout fan. I played POS as long as I could stand it, Fallout Tactics, and Fallout 3. A true fan will do their best to critically analyze the games in the series, even the ones they don't like.
 
To be honest, as a fallout fanboy, my first fallout game was Fallout 3. I never really saw what was so wrong with it. I have played a tad of Fallout 1 and a tad of fallout 2. (And I have to say, I disliked the end of Fallout 2. I'll miss you forever, Frankie.) Could someone explain...? Or is it mostly just nostalgia?
 
Dukeanumberone said:
Except Bethesda does none of these things. If they do a Fallout 4, rest assured it will be FO3 with a new coat of paint, a few changes to make it more like Skyrim, and maybe slightly better writing and moral ambiguity (basing myself on the Oblivion-Skyrim transition). They will never go the New Vegas or, heavens forbid, Fo1 and 2 route. It's not what their fanbase wants, it,s not what they do, period.
Click to expand...

Things never change, until they do.
We will just have to wait and see if those things improve in the next game. Or we can argue in circles about was has happened in the past another 100 times. There aren't enough threads like those on here, right?
Click to expand...

Oh, don't try that attitude with me please. I'm not saying nothing will change. I'm saying things won't change enough that it would be recognizable as a Fallout game, as opposed to a Beth-style open world RPG/shooter. They may add good things, they did it for the Elder Scrolls series, but if you think Bethesda will take more cues from Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas than from Skyrim you are deluding yourself. It's not just a vague theory or fanboy bitching, it's a recognizable pattern in their productions since Morrowind, one that's supported by ever-increasing sales. The incredible financial success of Skyrim's simplification (this isin't an insult; I liked the game) has more or less insured that Bethesda will continue in the same direction, including with Fallout.

To be honest, as a fallout fanboy, my first fallout game was Fallout 3. I never really saw what was so wrong with it. I have played a tad of Fallout 1 and a tad of fallout 2. (And I have to say, I disliked the end of Fallout 2. I'll miss you forever, Frankie.) Could someone explain...? Or is it mostly just nostalgia?
Click to expand...

Mostly the writing (many, including myself, find it vasty inferior in general), sweeping change to the formula (top-down RPG vs FPS with RPG elements) and the fact that ''player agency'' is a concept that has a very, very hard time existing in a Bethesda game. Maybe nostalgia for some, but I played Fallout 3 first, and its my least favourite today by a mile.

For me, it was the utterly nonsensical setting that sunk the game. Towns made of snooty children right next to the vault housing the Mutants that terrorize the wasteland, society surviving with no agriculture or husbandry whatsoever, fucking vampires, far more raiders than friendly NPCs, the bastardization of the Brotherhood Of Steel into boring white knights of the wastes, so on and so forth.
 
I mean. The switch was bound to happen. It was going to halfway happen in Van Buren. And if interplay had the rights after Van Buren they probably would have went to an FPS as well. Well. I agree with the children thing. I also kinda hate children in all games made by Bethesda. They're useless and annoying, really. But I kinda just... Look past that. I didn't see many raiders compared to most of New Vegas. Which was... Mainly raiders unless you're in a city or something. Fallout 3 at least had spawn points that you could easily either avoid or farm for equipment. The agriculture part..? Maybe they didn't put that in for gameplay..? Unsure but I kinda didn't care because I don't question game logic entirely sometimes. And there are many people in reality that think they are vampires. Why can't there be a fictional, video game version of those people? Hell. There are many police reports about people who are either insane or diluted themselves into thinking they need to feed on blood. Kinda unsure what to say about the BoS thing. But you have to admit there are at least /some/ good qualities about the game.
 
Ilosar said:
Dukeanumberone said:
Except Bethesda does none of these things. If they do a Fallout 4, rest assured it will be FO3 with a new coat of paint, a few changes to make it more like Skyrim, and maybe slightly better writing and moral ambiguity (basing myself on the Oblivion-Skyrim transition). They will never go the New Vegas or, heavens forbid, Fo1 and 2 route. It's not what their fanbase wants, it,s not what they do, period.
Click to expand...

Things never change, until they do.
We will just have to wait and see if those things improve in the next game. Or we can argue in circles about was has happened in the past another 100 times. There aren't enough threads like those on here, right?
Click to expand...

Oh, don't try that attitude with me please. I'm not saying nothing will change. I'm saying things won't change enough that it would be recognizable as a Fallout game, as opposed to a Beth-style open world RPG/shooter. They may add good things, they did it for the Elder Scrolls series, but if you think Bethesda will take more cues from Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas than from Skyrim you are deluding yourself. It's not just a vague theory or fanboy bitching, it's a recognizable pattern in their productions since Morrowind, one that's supported by ever-increasing sales. The incredible financial success of Skyrim's simplification (this isin't an insult; I liked the game) has more or less insured that Bethesda will continue in the same direction, including with Fallout.

To be honest, as a fallout fanboy, my first fallout game was Fallout 3. I never really saw what was so wrong with it. I have played a tad of Fallout 1 and a tad of fallout 2. (And I have to say, I disliked the end of Fallout 2. I'll miss you forever, Frankie.) Could someone explain...? Or is it mostly just nostalgia?
Click to expand...

Mostly the writing (many, including myself, find it vasty inferior in general), sweeping change to the formula (top-down RPG vs FPS with RPG elements) and the fact that ''player agency'' is a concept that has a very, very hard time existing in a Bethesda game. Maybe nostalgia for some, but I played Fallout 3 first, and its my least favourite today by a mile.

For me, it was the utterly nonsensical setting that sunk the game. Towns made of snooty children right next to the vault housing the Mutants that terrorize the wasteland, society surviving with no agriculture or husbandry whatsoever, fucking vampires, far more raiders than friendly NPCs, the bastardization of the Brotherhood Of Steel into boring white knights of the wastes, so on and so forth.
Click to expand...


Yet we got a decent Fallout game with New Vegas. I mean, what are they going to take from Skyrim? Maybe the note quests? Damn sure not the leveling system I hope. Skyrim didn't even change things that much for Elder Scrolls aside from the leveling did it? Those changes aren't needed for Fallout. They could have modeled the leveling like Elder Scrolls with F3 but they didn't.

I'm honestly curious Ilosar, not trying to raise hell. Fallout may have changed quite a bit, but New Vegas really felt like Fallout to me. A hell of a lot better than Tactics or F3. Fallout 4 may be a hell of a lot worse than New Vegas, but making these predictions, and stating that someone is deluding themselves by not thinking that is the case is a bit much. We won't know until they release info on Fallout 4. IF they do use the new shit from Skyrim and dumb down the game like that, I'll be just as pissed as you would be, but I won't say they are going to do that until I have some proof. They have stated from the beginning that the series are separate, so some things in one title won't necessarily be in the others.

As for Fallout 3, I completely agree. Man that game...I won't even go there. It's been done to death. I'm tired of talking about it.
 
mvm900 said:
I guess so...
Click to expand...

Guess so what? That it's been talked to death on these forums for 5 years? Yeah it has. People ask these questions often, but they don't bother to look through the forum to see what we have said on it a thousand times before. That's actually the reason NMA people get so irritated about the shit. Repeating yourself for every newb that comes along just gets.... monotonous. For anyone that is really curious, there are a hundred threads for it already in existence, yet these guys come along, and make new ones to spout out the same tired old opinion, like yours, no offense, and it just really grates on peoples nerves.

I'm serious bro, no matter what you have to say about Fallout 3, we've heard it all before. The game would have been good IF it wasn't Fallout, but it was, so we choose to not like it. Just differing opinions, yet we are expected to agree with all the fans of it. We have had to deal with so many Trolls, it's not even close to funny. Do Vampires belong in Fallout 3? Fuck no. No questions asked. No. Because we have some losers acting like Vamps in our world doesn't mean they should be in Fallout. Spawn placement in Fallout 3 is a non-issue. The problem is the crap story, the shallow gameplay, and the focus more on getting kewl loot rather than decent quests. It shouldn't' even be considered a RPG. Diablo 2 is more of an RPG than Fallout 3.
 
I meant if you don't like it then you don't like it. :P I like it and you don't. Albeit it's mainly because I like killing the enclave but still.
 
mvm900 said:
I meant if you don't like it then you don't like it. :P I like it and you don't. Albeit it's mainly because I like killing the enclave but still.
Click to expand...

That's another thing. The fucking Enclave. Besides the fact that they didn't even resemble the original Enclave in any way, man so much nonsense...

Fallout isn't about just killing shit ya know? That's the problem with many of these new fans, they just like killing cool shit. Fallout was never about just killing shit. It was about C&C. New Vegas had too much of that, so the newer fans didn't like it. Go figure. Should have put more cool shit to kill in it. :roll: :lol:

Coincidentally the most popular mods for New Vegas on Nexus...add a bunch of shit to kill. SO much in fact it's absurd beyond belief. Like AWOP.
 
Killing cool shit? No. I just liked killing them in particular. I am unsure why. I absolutely adored New Vegas. Everything about it. I'm not really a 'newb' to Fallout as I am a 'newb' to NMA.
 
mvm900 said:
Killing cool shit? No. I just liked killing them in particular. I am unsure why. I absolutely adored New Vegas. Everything about it. I'm not really a 'newb' to Fallout as I am a 'newb' to NMA.
Click to expand...

Wasn't specifically just talking about you in particular, although you did say one of the often repeated lines I hear coming from Fallout 3 fans. Bethesda Forums are filled with such talk.
 
And I apologize for doing so. I don't know many, if any, real Fallout fans in reality. Yes, some scattered people who have played it, but only one real 'fan'. And he adored Fallout 3. And thus we had something to talk about. I didn't know most of the fans really disliked it. But, really, I'd play almost anything if you slap a Fallout title and make it look like fallout simply because I love the theme and idea so much. Albeit I see why it's not as good as I previously thought so by reading why it's not so popular.
 
TorontRayne said:
I'm honestly curious Ilosar, not trying to raise hell. Fallout may have changed quite a bit, but New Vegas really felt like Fallout to me. A hell of a lot better than Tactics or F3. Fallout 4 may be a hell of a lot worse than New Vegas, but making these predictions, and stating that someone is deluding themselves by not thinking that is the case is a bit much. We won't know until they release info on Fallout 4. IF they do use the new shit from Skyrim and dumb down the game like that, I'll be just as pissed as you would be, but I won't say they are going to do that until I have some proof. They have stated from the beginning that the series are separate, so some things in one title won't necessarily be in the others.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I love New Vegas, perhaps even more than FO2. But it was made by Obsidian. Bethesda is just not the same thing, they don't do the same kind of game, they don't have the same fans, their titles have different expectations. I'm not saying Beth is evil or sucks, their game go from really good (Morrowind, Skyrim) to decent (FO3), but their approach is just different from Obsidian. Maybe, just maybe, they will use New Vegas as a base for their own FO4, but I very highly doubt it. Look at the mainstream reception of New Vegas (from ''yeah, it's good'' to ''too many bugs''). Then look at the reception of FO3 and Skyrim (BEST GAME EVAR1!!!! 11/10!!!). Bethesda is a mass market company. They want to please as many fans as are willing to touch the genre. I predict they will look at New Vegas, take a few ideas (faction reputation chief among them I bet) and build the rest according to their own design philosophy of accessibility, open world design and quasi-omnipresent rule of cool.

As for the series being separate, I'm not convinced. Saying that FO3 is Oblivion with guns is exagerated, but the Elder Scrolls series and Fallout 3 have a hell of a lot in common. Logical, it's the same studio. I expect FO4 to take a lot of ideas from the Elder Scrolls as well.
 
Ilosar said:
TorontRayne said:
I'm honestly curious Ilosar, not trying to raise hell. Fallout may have changed quite a bit, but New Vegas really felt like Fallout to me. A hell of a lot better than Tactics or F3. Fallout 4 may be a hell of a lot worse than New Vegas, but making these predictions, and stating that someone is deluding themselves by not thinking that is the case is a bit much. We won't know until they release info on Fallout 4. IF they do use the new shit from Skyrim and dumb down the game like that, I'll be just as pissed as you would be, but I won't say they are going to do that until I have some proof. They have stated from the beginning that the series are separate, so some things in one title won't necessarily be in the others.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I love New Vegas, perhaps even more than FO2. But it was made by Obsidian. Bethesda is just not the same thing, they don't do the same kind of game, they don't have the same fans, their titles have different expectations. I'm not saying Beth is evil or sucks, their game go from really good (Morrowind, Skyrim) to decent (FO3), but their approach is just different from Obsidian. Maybe, just maybe, they will use New Vegas as a base for their own FO4, but I very highly doubt it. Look at the mainstream reception of New Vegas (from ''yeah, it's good'' to ''too many bugs''). Then look at the reception of FO3 and Skyrim (BEST GAME EVAR1!!!! 11/10!!!). Bethesda is a mass market company. They want to please as many fans as are willing to touch the genre. I predict they will look at New Vegas, take a few ideas (faction reputation chief among them I bet) and build the rest according to their own design philosophy of accessibility, open world design and quasi-omnipresent rule of cool.

As for the series being separate, I'm not convinced. Saying that FO3 is Oblivion with guns is exagerated, but the Elder Scrolls series and Fallout 3 have a hell of a lot in common. Logical, it's the same studio. I expect FO4 to take a lot of ideas from the Elder Scrolls as well.
Click to expand...

I agree but I have my hopes up that they won't go with the Skyrim dumbing down process. Fuck that would kill me.
 
Skyrim was an insult to Bethesda itself, yet it had a lot of sales, so i don't really think they're going for a change, let us hope that FO4 doesn't get that dumbed down at least, and the lore isn't too far away from the originals, because of Beth, there is nothing more to expect, i mean, they made TES series, that's their great achievement, but now they try to port that glory over to their other games, i mean, even Dishonored has a certain Skyrim feel to it...
Our only hopes is to keep making our fan-made Fallout universe as we know it must be.
FO modding FTW!
 
Ilosar said:
Dukeanumberone said:
Except Bethesda does none of these things. If they do a Fallout 4, rest assured it will be FO3 with a new coat of paint, a few changes to make it more like Skyrim, and maybe slightly better writing and moral ambiguity (basing myself on the Oblivion-Skyrim transition). They will never go the New Vegas or, heavens forbid, Fo1 and 2 route. It's not what their fanbase wants, it,s not what they do, period.
Click to expand...

Things never change, until they do.
We will just have to wait and see if those things improve in the next game. Or we can argue in circles about was has happened in the past another 100 times. There aren't enough threads like those on here, right?
Click to expand...

Oh, don't try that attitude with me please. I'm not saying nothing will change. I'm saying things won't change enough that it would be recognizable as a Fallout game, as opposed to a Beth-style open world RPG/shooter. They may add good things, they did it for the Elder Scrolls series, but if you think Bethesda will take more cues from Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas than from Skyrim you are deluding yourself. It's not just a vague theory or fanboy bitching, it's a recognizable pattern in their productions since Morrowind, one that's supported by ever-increasing sales. The incredible financial success of Skyrim's simplification (this isin't an insult; I liked the game) has more or less insured that Bethesda will continue in the same direction, including with Fallout.
Click to expand...
well if they make it even MORE simple then Skyrim and Oblivion, Fallout 4 could be as well just some ego shooter like Unreal.

Might even lead to the better experience ... who knows.

mvm900 said:
? Or is it mostly just nostalgia?
Click to expand...
It is just nostaliga. Its pretty clear that we don't have a clue what we are talking about :D

no seriously, search for a few topics in the Fallout 3 section. You will find a lot of posts which can explain you everything.
 
That being said. I'm reading some of the stuff in the Fallout 3 section. I'd like to again say that I'm not stating Fallout 3 is 'lolamazing' or 'thebestfalloutever'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top