From E3 untill now, Can you honestly tell me what we know of Fallout 4 objectively?

Discussion in 'Future Fallout Game Discussion' started by TransgenderVaultDeweller, Oct 19, 2015.

  1. XCalinX

    XCalinX First time out of the vault

    25
    Sep 3, 2015
    I don't think game mechanics should dictate what a sequel is.

    Otherwise GTA 3 through V wouldn't be true GTA games since the first four games were top down.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 4
  2. Bubba Zanetti

    Bubba Zanetti I know what I'm doing

    214
    Oct 6, 2015
    GTA III did offer an optional top down camera view, most likely as a call back to the original games.
     
  3. kostjamoscow

    kostjamoscow It Wandered In From the Wastes

    177
    Oct 22, 2015
    Really happy Bethesda has shown as little as possible.

    I want to be surprised by the awesome/unpredictable open world.

    I, like millions of other gamers, already knew that I would buy Fallout 4 5 years ago. The only thing i needed was a release date.
     
  4. kostjamoscow

    kostjamoscow It Wandered In From the Wastes

    177
    Oct 22, 2015
    I really disagree. The unique selling point of Fallout 1/2 is it's RPG mechanics/story. Not the fact that it is top down or turn based. Firstly it's an RPG and secondly it's top down.

    So long as the sequel to Fallout is a RPG game that captures that same feeling of Fallout it's a Fallout.

    Now whether Bethesda did a great or a poor job at making a good RPG game is another discussion. But it's not bad or good because it's first person.
     
  5. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Level 27 Wizard Staff Member Moderator

    Apr 1, 2005
    This was always my take on things...I don't necessarily hate (although I do prefer turn based) the first person view. I just hate the way Bethesda did it.

    This was probably asked but did we know more or less about Skyrim when it came out when compared to Fallout 4? I can't believe it's two weeks until launch.
     
  6. Bubba Zanetti

    Bubba Zanetti I know what I'm doing

    214
    Oct 6, 2015
    I missed a lot of the Skyrim hype as I was, uh, indisposed for much of 2011, though what little I do remember was mostly them hawking their copy and paste dungeon designs... and of course the dragons.
     
  7. Dr Fallout

    Dr Fallout Centurion

    Aug 17, 2015
    Dragons... I'm surprised (not really) how badly Bethesda handled the majestic creatures that are dragons. They just turned them into boring mindless pests.
     
  8. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    You and the other posters can of course disagree, however than you all would disagree with the decisions of the developers of Falout 1 as well which have never reduced Fallout as game just to the generic side of RPGs.

    I am a bit puzzled actually, because their quotes, intentions and the history of Fallout 1 are there to read, for everyone.

    The History of Fallout
    http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=35764

    So sorry guys, unless you want to contradict the directions the original Fallout developers wanted to go with their game you can not just say, that the mechanics are seperated from Fallout and just reduce it to some generic RPG-mechanic or the setting alone - particularly as they decided already in the early stages of the game to go with GURPS and emulating the PnP feel in a compute game. Combat in GURPS (...) is organized in personal turns: i.e., every character gets a turn each second, and during his or her character's turn he or she may take an action, such as attack or move. And Interplay licenced GURPS for their games already in 1995. As far as I remember a first playable demo/draft of Fallout 1 included a fantasy setting, maybe even before they finalized their idea for the setting (1950s future), but it was still a turn based game.

    I mean no matter what I say or think, but I would at least say that if someone knows what a true Sequel should look like, as far as it goes with Fallout, than it is for sure the original developers.

     
  9. Dr Fallout

    Dr Fallout Centurion

    Aug 17, 2015
    Stop beating a dead, technically incorrect horse. Yes, in heart we're with you but when it comes to brains... really, really, really look at the definition. A sequel DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE THE SAME GAME MECHANICS! How simple is that? No matter what you say (again in heart, we're with you man) but in all technicalities it does not need to have similair game mechanics. Here's the definition!


    1. A sequel (also known as a follow-up) is a narrative, documental, or other work of literature, film, theatre, television, music, or video game that continues the story of, or expands upon, some earlier work.


     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  10. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    Dragons are fucking boring, they are the most generic "Boss Monster" that you can get. No idea what's people obssession with them, same with Zombies.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  11. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    You do realize that this is a very broad and generic definitin, if anything. Beacuse if we follow it to the letter, that means the new GTA games are not Sequels to the previous ones because they don't continue or expand the story of previous work. And yet, a few here see GTA as Sequel to the previous top-down GTA games. It also excludes all kind of games where the story isn't even really a focal point because the definition is reducing games on just the story alone.

    Games are for many reasons not only defined by the story or setting, mechanics do play a role here. In some cases the mechanics ARE the game and have such an important role that they defined whole genres, see at Diablo, Sim City, Command and Conquer. And I am baffled how someone could not see that, because a strategy game like Civilisation or Hearts of Iron offers a vastly different experience to a game like Doom or Duke Nukem and the mechanics are not interchangable. However if we really follow this so called definition to the letter, you could pretty much declare EVERYTHIGN as Sequel, even literal jar full of turd, while completely ignoring all the other kinds of defintion that range from prequels, to spin-offs, spiritual successors, reboots, remakes and all the other examples. And all of that just because maybe some lunatic decided that the best Sequel to Deus Ex would be a log. A wodden. log. 10 milon people bought it! So this wooden log is now the Sequel to Deus Ex.

    I do not denny that there is a lot of freedom. Definetly. But you can not simply ignore the original intentions of the game, design goals and what the original developers had in mind when they made their game. Otherwise you become something that is just a Sequel in name only, a Spin-Off at best.

    I also don't understand why it would be such a problem to label Fallout 3 and 4 as Spin-Offs. Or Fallout 3 a spiritual successor to Oblivion for example.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
  12. Dr Fallout

    Dr Fallout Centurion

    Aug 17, 2015
    As long as it follows this definition then it's all set to go!
    A sequel (also known as a follow-up) is a narrative, documental, or other work of literature, film, theatre, television, music, or video game that continues the story of, or expands upon, some earlier work.

    Don't forget 'expands upon'. GTA does expand upon the theme and games.
     
  13. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Well, I will stay with the original developers on that one instead of some article on Wikipedia.

    I think they are very generic on wiki with their Sequel definition, and that for a reason. Again, there are many titles that are seen as Sequels which do NOT fall in this category, because they neither expand the original story nor do they directly continue it - but they have the same mechanics, those kind of games would technically not be Sequels all of sudden. - I admit those are rare, but they exist.

    You can not reduce games only to the story and/or setting because they are an interactive medium with player imput and the choice you make here can change player experience a lot up to the point where the angle of how you approach the story can even change! But you can not reduce games only to the mechanics either.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
  14. generalissimofurioso

    generalissimofurioso The Hole Time Orderite

    Jun 17, 2007
    They're boring because people keep doing boring things with them.

    You have people looking at beings that have hundreds of years of lore from various cultures behind them and then going "I'm gonna have it slowly approach the player and get shot/stabbed"

    I mean, look at Shadowrun, they did zombies and dragons awesomely.

    Mostly because they weren't just blank enemies.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  15. Dr Fallout

    Dr Fallout Centurion

    Aug 17, 2015
    You can't screw the definition of one word. If so, then what of the other various words used?

    Basically, Fallout 3 isn't a sequel nor is Fallout 4. Fallout New Vegas is.

    Remember, just because people say something is a sequel doesn't mean it is.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  16. Beaushizzle

    Beaushizzle Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    328
    Aug 3, 2015
    You guys are ridiculous.
     
  17. Dr Fallout

    Dr Fallout Centurion

    Aug 17, 2015
    I hope you're joking, but if you aren't that's fine.

    Though coming from a gun nut who said that guns could be used for loads of reasons....
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  18. Battlecross

    Battlecross Banned

    730
    Jun 17, 2015
    Well they can be used for several reasons.
     
  19. generalissimofurioso

    generalissimofurioso The Hole Time Orderite

    Jun 17, 2007


     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2016
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  20. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    Ok guys, keep that shit to the appropiate gun discussion threads. Only insults allowed in here are the ones derived from Fallout opinions.