Kohno
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Yea, Chris has tweeted he's not working on it. That's the clearest hint among the rest of the nonsense there.
Fallout 76 announced!
- Thread starter Hassknecht
- Start date
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Cobra Commander
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Found this could be a "my dad works at bethesda" type thing but:
aside from Harold and BoS looks pretty good.
This is a Fallout I would play.
Maybe he's just fooling around.
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Fallout 2 and New Vegas aren't simply copies of Fallout 1s setting, they are an expansion of it. Northern California and the Mojave are very different to the Core Region. While there is some overlap between the regions, this overlap is addressed and treated realistically. 3 and 4 on the other hand simply take everything well known about Fallout and mince it toghether in to their wasteland and call it a day, making their settings have all the major
To explain this distinction, let's look at Fallout 2's setting in relation to Fallout 1s. The early-game content in Fallout 1 is almost completely separate from the events of Fallout 1. In the early game, we see a town of trappers who make their fortune hunting geckos for their hides, a den where all the junkies and slavers wind up, a small dying farming community that's main conflict is a misunderstanding with a group of mutants, an exploration of what happens with successful Vaults. We have entirely new, original ideas and conflicts, and the events of the first game are only alluded to near the beginning, with rumours of an army of giant green mutants migrating north, and with your tribe mythologising the past of the Vault Dweller.
The iconic parts of the franchise, the Ghouls, the Supermutants, the Deathclaws, only start showing up later. Since the setting in Fallout 2 encompasses part of the setting in Fallout 1, the closer you get to the NCR, the more you see the parts of the original game. This is because these elements exist due to Fallout 2 being set in Fallout 1, not independently. To see this more clearly, consider how the first reference you get to Supermutants outside of the intro is Mom in the Den mentioning how she remembered seeing big green mutants as a child, however once you get to San Fransisco, character's directly reference the Master's Army.
Even the parts of Fallout 2 which are reminiscent of Fallout 1 are treated in a very different context to the way they are in Fallout 1. Supermutants are no longer the big bad, but rather people who are mostly settling down in human towns, The Brotherhood are treated as a very minor presence up north, barely interacting with the story at all, The main raiders are mercenaries and remnants of the Khans out for revenge, caps are replaced with NCR dollars, the main conflict seems to be between Vault City, New Reno and the NCR, each of which wishing to expand their power, and this spreads to every part of the game.
The setting of Fallout 2 is unique in that we see new parts of the wasteland, based around original ideas, the troubles that they face are unique, and any overlap comes purely from it's closeness to the setting.
Compare this to 3 and 4 where two separate sources of supermutants just so happened to show up here for no good reason, it has the same mad-max feel as Fallout 1 despite being set much, much further along the timeline, the Brotherhood are in full force just for the sake of having the brotherhood in full force. Towns are usually generic, with Megaton being a scrappy town that's only defining characteristic is a bomb, Rivet City just being a hub city on a boat with not much else, Diamond City's whole gig being that it's Fenway Park. The people in these settings usually struggle with Raiders, Supermutants and Ghouls of some kind as their main problems, and there is no real overarching connection between the towns.
Fallout 3 and 4 are essentially just generic wasteland with all the iconic Brotherhood, Supermutants, Bottlecaps and Raiders slapped in to remind you it's a Fallout game. These things aren't there as an expansion of their role in previous games, they are there because this is a Fallout game and they need to remind you that nothing has changed in 120 years.
Cobra Commander
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
post of the day
BigGuyCIA
Yer fond of me Lobster!
Keeping in mind that he's been contradicted by several other employees and that he seems to kick up dirt every time an Obsidian title is about to release. His claims are dubious at best and his behavior is a corporate red-flag: "When I leave the company I will proceed to shit all over you."
Yeah, it is. There's no fucking way the current talking-heads at Bethesda are going to green-light more dialogue options and skills. That's a step backwards in their eyes.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The main reason why i like New Vegas setting because it looks like civilization is actually moving forward. Everything looks more cleaner, more organized, several groups of people are thriving and it no longer looks like people are still scavenging abandoned buildings for food. It shows how much civilization has move forward.
Fallout 3 and 4 to a lesser extent look like the bombs fell like 20 years ago (much more in 3), that it looks like civilization just sat on their asses doing nothing during pretty much for 200 years. It's nonsensical and it makes civilization look like a bunch of lazy assholes.
Fallout 3 and 4 to a lesser extent look like the bombs fell like 20 years ago (much more in 3), that it looks like civilization just sat on their asses doing nothing during pretty much for 200 years. It's nonsensical and it makes civilization look like a bunch of lazy assholes.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
See, I'm fully of the school humanity will never fix itself.
It's broken.
Lawless chaos forever.
It's broken.
Lawless chaos forever.
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Depends how you define "Fix itself". Personally I'd disagree with the claim that having powerful merchant houses trading across the coast, and a massive expansionist republic is humanity "Fixing itself", so much as getting caught up in the same trappings it got itself caught up in last time.
Though I disagree that a setting could function on lawless chaos forever. If people are being brutalised by several different raider gangs, something's gotta give. Stalemates don't last forever. Eventually one of the gangs will come out on top, or alternatively the towns will get sick of the raiders bullshit and form militias.
A setting where gangs are in direct rivalry, and exploiting towns indefinitely is inherently unsustainable. Eventually it'll either lead to either someone taking charge, or no-one taking charge. It wouldn't result in a 200 year long stalemate.
TheHouseAlwaysWins
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Hey, you guys should remember that Fallout is about having hope for it. I think no matter how much small of a chance it is we should hope that the new Fallout game will be good or great. It is made by a sub studio and not by directly Betehsda.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
To be fair, to say that 3 and 4's settings are the same while the classics & NV's isn't is a bit fallacious. It's a mix of tone and general visual design in contrast to the other actual changes. In 3 and 4 it's all about finding your (actually older) only family member yet, as a fish-out-of-water, in a currently unstabilized Wasteland fought over by the Brotherhood of Steel, a more technologically advanced which holds the "dillema" of a chance to restore civilization and order with a macguffin, with a generally grim and depressive tone contrasted by oddly whacky and colorful situations and characters that seem oddly unaware of their reality. While it takes on a bit from NV in that there's actually different endings (even id it's only two) and a chance to have your own approach (to an extent), it's tone is still pretty much the same. And factions from the previous game(s) are roughly in the same place, like if only you the player can dictate their fate. You could say that "rebuilding" is a theme conveyed through ludonarrative consonance with all the Settlements mechanic, but I'd slap you for saying that.
Visually, the main geographical and architectural differences are the completely empty sea taking like 33% of the map, wetlands/swamps and slightly more previously lush charred forests, with the city and architecture applying some more of that color and scale that'd ensue, with the New England lenient small town holds. That's pretty much the end of it. The rest are soft redesigns (which are pretty great across the board).
Visually, the main geographical and architectural differences are the completely empty sea taking like 33% of the map, wetlands/swamps and slightly more previously lush charred forests, with the city and architecture applying some more of that color and scale that'd ensue, with the New England lenient small town holds. That's pretty much the end of it. The rest are soft redesigns (which are pretty great across the board).
BigGuyCIA
Yer fond of me Lobster!
The thing I'm concerned by Fo76 is the precedent it might set for future Fallout titles (not that I should care - but I still do deep down). Going off the credibility of the 4chan leak means that the success of ESO has essentially halted BGS' current interest in developing a singe-player title. Whether it's because Zenimax is saying "don't develop it" or BGS is making that decision to focus on other ventures is unknown.
If Fo76 is a universal success and performs better than Fallout 4 in every metric imaginable, what does that mean for future Fallout titles? If base building "just works" in 76, is it going to be pushed again as a major focal point in an official sequel. If the voiced character is dropped in favor of a mute character (that just kicks and screams when hit or downed ala Rust) is that going to be the translated into the next game?
If Fo76 performs mechanically better than anything the parent studio has ever produced, is the main studio going to immediately burn the child studio to the ground and cut ties with the developers because Todd Howard and Co. can do no wrong?
If Fo76 is a universal success and performs better than Fallout 4 in every metric imaginable, what does that mean for future Fallout titles? If base building "just works" in 76, is it going to be pushed again as a major focal point in an official sequel. If the voiced character is dropped in favor of a mute character (that just kicks and screams when hit or downed ala Rust) is that going to be the translated into the next game?
If Fo76 performs mechanically better than anything the parent studio has ever produced, is the main studio going to immediately burn the child studio to the ground and cut ties with the developers because Todd Howard and Co. can do no wrong?
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
If it's an actually good change I wouldn't mind a big core gameplay change, if I'm honest. And also, there's no way they're dropping the Bethesda formula anytime. But hey, change is good. And you can't go much worse at this point.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Actually it is because they are making a new engine.
Lieutenant
Through our Unity, the world will survive.
Jesus Christ, just put the series out of it's misery already.
Nathan9962
NMPerdue
I feel like Fallout 76 could be a good game if they don't do the following:
1. they won't make it forced multiplayer (though they probably won't because they literally a few months ago said they saved single-player )
2. if the rumors of it being multi-player true then it would have to not be an MMO because I have no idea how vats would work because that would mean everyone who was online there game would start freezing up because some one was fighting something or just wanted to troll everyone
1. they won't make it forced multiplayer (though they probably won't because they literally a few months ago said they saved single-player )
2. if the rumors of it being multi-player true then it would have to not be an MMO because I have no idea how vats would work because that would mean everyone who was online there game would start freezing up because some one was fighting something or just wanted to troll everyone
BigGuyCIA
Yer fond of me Lobster!
For TES?
Practicat
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
The Pip-Boy 2000 doesn't have VATS, which would be a valid reason for omitting VATS in this game besides the problem of slowing or stopping time in multiplayer, but the one we see is a variation of it designated as the Mark 4 version, just like how the Pip-Boy 3000 has a Mark 4 variant, which probably has additional features like a built-in Geiger counter and maybe VATS.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Ideally someone develops their own engine to use on more than one game so Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and their futuristic loot based simulator.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
VATS is perhaps the most onerously ridiculous thing I've ever seen in a Bethesda title; utterly absurd.
They took the name of a location in the first game, and used it for a loose parody of the option to aim; making it a magical time slowing bracelet that allows real-time attacks on slowed enemies; and reduces incoming personal damage by 90% when used.
If anything, they should remove VATS from their games.
TerminallyChill
Be excellent to each other.
Oh right, because the Fallout titles are best known for their gritty scientific realism.
Conceptually a hybrid action/turn-based combat system isn't horrible, and I personally find VATS to be pretty fun to use in Fallout 3 and New Vegas. The overall execution leaves a lot to be desired, though. I agree with you that the balance is totally fucked. If anything, you should penalized for using it, not rewarded with a damage buff. And AP definitely shouldn't recharge without some sort of ammunition resource like energy cells.