Fallout 4 teased? Three Dog returning

[Crni Vuk]

don't worry this community is pretty hostile to everyone who is new. We need some time to get used to new faces. We are like hillbillies.

 

[Akratus]

I was once a fanatic Fallout 3 fan. I made an account on here named "Fallout3Rules" or some such. By god I was a blathering idiot.

And on the note NMA's opinion on Fallout 3, which ranges from apathetic to hateful:

In the creation of Fallout 1, most of the story of Fallout 2, the Fallout universe and the mechanics of both first two Fallout games Black Isle had these things in mind, as I presume:
-A deliberate and well constructed amount of pacing. You did not run from place to place completing simple tasks and objectives without any deliberation. You listen, you do things at a certain pace. The combat is the same. It's tactical and based on choice.
-An emphasis on quests, with choice and consequence in them, and stats, skills and skill use.
-A thought out and immersive story. Including villains that stand up to scrutiny.
-The same deliberation and thought in the art design and world building. There were never androids who were exactly human 'just because'. When a weapon is powerful and fueled by energy it was big, when a computer was intelligent it filled a room. When a faction was set up it was not hauled from the other side of the country because the devs wanted to.
-When it came to dialogue and story this attitude was shown as well. The tones were either serious or darkly humoristic (or plain jokingly, when it came to some references, easter eggs and plain old jokes, ofcourse)
-This results in a story where themes are reinforced, characters are built up with the story in mind, and the game plays out using these things, in large part, to it's full effect.

Bethesda subverted these stances, but it's at the core of the games which is why people get different opinions based on the surface of the games. Because Fallout 3 looks retro futuristic, and it's about shallow suffering and easy heroicism. It's easy to confuse them if you lack the knowledge necessary to identify themes and intentions in design, and the meanings of both. (Pssh, I'm referring to most Fallout 3 fans! But don't tell nobody)

The Bethesda Forums aren't so bad though. There's a seperation between threads like: "What little things did you like in Fallout 3" where people just list: "I like the haunted manshion." without discussion and threads where criticism of Bethesda and deeper discussion is welcome.

And none of these things appeared in Skyrim or even it's dlc. Bethesda shows us that it's fine with how they do things, and without a change in leadership things will remain as such. It's not all bad. Not for me. I like Skyrim, and Oblivion. Not in a way in that it results from quality, but personal taste. Nor does it result from technical aspects concerning game design.

 

[Mistrz]

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.

FT dosent belong in same line with F3 and POS. For me third best game in series.

 

[TorontoReign]

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.

FT dosent belong in same line with F3 and POS. For me third best game in series.

I do agree it is a good game, but it has it's downfalls. Personally I see it as the fourth best, with New Vegas being the third.

 

[Makenshi]

Call e a heretic, but Tactics shows the gritty nature of the wastes better than any game in the series, except maybe Fallout 1. Maybe.

Other than that, yeah, it's got some issues (being a tactical game instead of an rpg NOT one of them, since it was never announced as an rpg; or was it?).

 

[Geech]

Fallout Tactics is as abusive to the lore as Fallout 3. It's not a terrible game, unlike FO: BOS, but it's not really a good entry in the series. The fact that it happened under Interplay's watch makes it feel a bit more galling to me, though.

In my opinion, it's a much poorer representation of the Wastes than most of the RPG entries, including FO3 probably, because the player never really has any sense that resources are scarce. Look at the transformation of the Brotherhood from a cloistered organization to one that aggressively expands territory and works to develop relationships with the locals. How is that grittier?

 

[Mistrz]

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.

FT dosent belong in same line with F3 and POS. For me third best game in series.

I do agree it is a good game, but it has it's downfalls. Personally I see it as the fourth best, with New Vegas being the third.

Oh, ok. I had impression you thought It was bad.

Fallout Tactics is as abusive to the lore as Fallout 3. It's not a terrible game, unlike FO: BOS, but it's not really a good entry in the series. The fact that it happened under Interplay's watch makes it feel a bit more galling to me, though.

In my opinion, it's a much poorer representation of the Wastes than most of the RPG entries, including FO3 probably, because the player never really has any sense that resources are scarce. Look at the transformation of the Brotherhood from a cloistered organization to one that aggressively expands territory and works to develop relationships with the locals. How is that grittier?

It was splinter faction, with less isolated , but very aggresive approach. I want my splinter BoS to be harsh and facist, not knights of wasteland in shining armor.

 

[MagicLantern]

Look at the transformation of the Brotherhood from a cloistered organization to one that aggressively expands territory and works to develop relationships with the locals. How is that grittier?

They just needed fresh blood, that's all. Every ones are getting old with time even BoS paladins. How could they survive without accepting new recruits? And they expanding territory because they want to get to the vault 0. It make sense. They aren't white angels like BoS in F3. I think that they are somewhat like liberal version of Cesar Legion.

because the player never really has any sense that resources are scarce

Did you played these game on tough mode? I would really recommend playing it these way. Not really as hard as it may looks like, but you will quickly find that resources (and living team mates) actually are scarce

My personal favor character from tactics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4glIl__2rzg

love these guy

 

[Geech]

In my opinion, it's a much poorer representation of the Wastes than most of the RPG entries, including FO3 probably, because the player never really has any sense that resources are scarce. Look at the transformation of the Brotherhood from a cloistered organization to one that aggressively expands territory and works to develop relationships with the locals. How is that grittier?

It was splinter faction, with less isolated , but very aggresive approach. I want my splinter BoS to be harsh and facist, not knights of wasteland in shining armor.

The BOS were never knights in shining armor until Fallout 3. In Fallout, they were a cloistered organization that was concerned with the affairs of the wasteland only so far as they impacted the Brotherhood. They were xenophobic and insular. They didn't want to fight the mutants at all, and many of the elders openly resisted such a notion. On top of that, they didn't really have the resources to challenge the mutants even if they wanted to. In this incarnation, even the good ending for the Brotherhood describes them staying out of the power structure of the core region.

The Brotherhood barely had a presence in Fallout 2, and once again they were a secretive and withdrawn organization.

It wasn't until Fallout Tactics that the Brotherhood showed the drive or the necessary resources to expand into further territories. This little splinter group appears to be larger and more powerful than the original brotherhood, and they act in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the origin, attitudes and goals of the original group. If you want grittier, that's a move in the wrong direction.

They just needed fresh blood, that's all. Every ones are getting old with time even BoS paladins. How could they survive without accepting new recruits? And they expanding territory because they want to get to the vault 0. It make sense. They aren't white angels like BoS in F3. I think that they are somewhat like liberal version of Cesar Legion.

Vault 0 was a story element that didn't exist until Tactics and was logically incompatible with the design of the earlier games. Furthermore, the existence of Vault 0 is revealed throughout the course of the game, and is not the initial motivation for expansion. And while they may need new members, flying across the country in zeppelins is hardly a reasonable means of acquiring them. They could have easily added new members in the core region without completely changing the nature of the organization.

The point is the Tactics Brotherhood is not only a poor interpretation of the original group, it's also an illogical way of operating in a nuclear wasteland where resources and technology are at a premium. I'm not saying it's a bad game, but it is a poor representation of the setting.

 

[Makenshi]

Furthermore, the existence of Vault 0 is revealed throughout the course of the game, and is not the initial motivation for expansion.

Releaved to the player, it was know by the leaders and the expansion to west was solely due to discovering data about Vault 0 (before the game begins, and thus before the estabilishment of aditional bunkers, which is what truly marks the expansion in that direction).

Otherwise they would do the logical thing: spherical expansion, instead of linear expansion.

 

[Mistrz]

In my opinion, it's a much poorer representation of the Wastes than most of the RPG entries, including FO3 probably, because the player never really has any sense that resources are scarce. Look at the transformation of the Brotherhood from a cloistered organization to one that aggressively expands territory and works to develop relationships with the locals. How is that grittier?

It was splinter faction, with less isolated , but very aggresive approach. I want my splinter BoS to be harsh and facist, not knights of wasteland in shining armor.

The BOS were never knights in shining armor until Fallout 3. In Fallout, they were a cloistered organization that was concerned with the affairs of the wasteland only so far as they impacted the Brotherhood. They were xenophobic and insular. They didn't want to fight the mutants at all, and many of the elders openly resisted such a notion. On top of that, they didn't really have the resources to challenge the mutants even if they wanted to. In this incarnation, even the good ending for the Brotherhood describes them staying out of the power structure of the core region.

The Brotherhood barely had a presence in Fallout 2, and once again they were a secretive and withdrawn organization.

It wasn't until Fallout Tactics that the Brotherhood showed the drive or the necessary resources to expand into further territories. This little splinter group appears to be larger and more powerful than the original brotherhood, and they act in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the origin, attitudes and goals of the original group. If you want grittier, that's a move in the wrong direction.

They just needed fresh blood, that's all. Every ones are getting old with time even BoS paladins. How could they survive without accepting new recruits? And they expanding territory because they want to get to the vault 0. It make sense. They aren't white angels like BoS in F3. I think that they are somewhat like liberal version of Cesar Legion.

Vault 0 was a story element that didn't exist until Tactics and was logically incompatible with the design of the earlier games. Furthermore, the existence of Vault 0 is revealed throughout the course of the game, and is not the initial motivation for expansion. And while they may need new members, flying across the country in zeppelins is hardly a reasonable means of acquiring them. They could have easily added new members in the core region without completely changing the nature of the organization.

The point is the Tactics Brotherhood is not only a poor interpretation of the original group, it's also an illogical way of operating in a nuclear wasteland where resources and technology are at a premium. I'm not saying it's a bad game, but it is a poor representation of the setting.

I`m sorry but I don`t think you played FT. The group from FT was exiled BECAUSE they wanted include new recriuts. People like original vault dweller. And just like original VD they were sent on suiscide mission in shitty zepelins, without sufficient equipment. They`ve got more people then original brotherhood, because they were actively recruting. Their goals also changed. Protection to settlements in exchange for more muscle and resources. Hell they`ve even changed their insignia for further difference from original Brotherhood.

 

[.Pixote.]

Call me a heretic, but Tactics shows the gritty nature of the wastes better than any game in the series, except maybe Fallout 1. Maybe.

After the mutant encounters things go downhill pretty fast, it's a case of a game that doesn't have much to say (same old, same old), but the first half is great. If they had only attached a decent story and quests to it.

 

[Makenshi]

Agreed.