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

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.
 
Crni Vuk said:
As far as games goes, yes a Sequel DOES have to be mechanicaly similar to be a Sequel. Or it doesn't provide you with the same experience as previous games did.

.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kostjamoscow said:
Crni Vuk said:
As far as games goes, yes a Sequel DOES have to be mechanicaly similar to be a Sequel. Or it doesn't provide you with the same experience as previous games did.

.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TorontRayne said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dragons... I'm surprised (not really) how badly Bethesda handled the majestic creatures that are dragons. They just turned them into boring mindless pests.
 
kostjamoscow said:
Crni Vuk said:
As far as games goes, yes a Sequel DOES have to be mechanicaly similar to be a Sequel. Or it doesn't provide you with the same experience as previous games did.

.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

Fallout: combat

When asked to talk about Fallout's combat system, Tim Cain has noted "I think the strength of Fallout's combat system is that it was easy to understand and use, but still complex enough to give you many options on how to fight. Turn-based combat gives you more time to think of battle tactics, so combat feels richer - and a lot of people responded to that." (ref) Additionally, Tim explained "It also showed how popular and fun turn-based combat could be, when everyone else was going with real-time or pause-based combat." (ref) Feargus Urquhart later added "If you want to exactly represent GURPs, D&D or most other PnP RPGs then you have to go turn based, which was the decision for Fallout when it was GURPs." (ref)
Click to expand...

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.

Fallout 3
Did you guys have a story ready for a Fallout 3? Or what was your plan?
Leonard Boyarsky: We had a few different things we were tossing back and forth, but nothing concrete. We were thinking more along the lines of overall gameplay, functionality, etc. than story at this point.

Would you have made Fallout 3 isometric and with Turn Based combat or would you have followed the same principle that you're using on this PA title?
Leonard Boyarsky: I don�t know how I would have felt about making FO3 anything but isometric and turn based. We did have an extremely high budget idea for another approach, but even in that scenario combat was isometric and turn based. Of course, it�s easy for me to say I wouldn�t have done a paused real time FO3 now, but I don�t know what I would have said if the offer was made.
Click to expand...
 
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.


 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
Walpknut said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Ok guys, keep that shit to the appropiate gun discussion threads. Only insults allowed in here are the ones derived from Fallout opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top