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

Battlecross said:
Uh, I never said an FPS isn't Fallout because that isn't true. Fallout can be anything. I'm saying Fallout 1 is more Fallout because it CREATED Fallout, so that statement is so obvious as to be pointless to say. You moved the goalposts there by claiming you were saying that it can't be an FPS by the way.
Click to expand...

No of course you didn't. I say that an FPS can not be a Sequel to Fallout 1.

However, I never said an FPS can not be made in the Fallout universe, like a spin off. Fallout can be anything, yes, but a Fallout Sequel can not be anything.

Fallout made as angry birds could not be a Sequel to Fallout 1. But I could totally see an angry bird Fallout just for fun.

Just as how they did it with Star Wars. See you can do everything with Star Wars, but you can not make evrything with a Sequel.

I can make an Angry Birds Star Wars game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6lYFO_tKlE

But it is not a Sequel to Jedy Knight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LerYJmDLYqU

So, yes, while you can make Fallout FPS games, an FPS Fallout game however, is not a Sequel to Fallout 1, and it would be not a good representation of what Fallout originally was. This simply happens when you have a game, movie, story (books) etc. that expand way further than what they have been originally meant to be. This has good sides, like making it known to a broader audience, but this also has bad side effects like deluting the original concept. There is no doubt that Star Wars today is not the kind of Star Wars like in the 1970s and 80s or that Star Trek today is not what it was back than, because what you see today is moving further away from what made it actually popular in the first place.
 
Last edited:
@Battlecross

Both Might and Magic and Heroes of Might and Magic are M&M games.The majority loves both however making one as sequel to the other would naturaly cause some s**t storm.

Fallout 1 sets a expectation for the sequel and if a potencial sequel doesn't meet that expectation it's only fair to call that game "bad". Even if it's more enjoyable to the new-players.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But you weren't a War veteran human popsicle in Fallout 1...

Also the classics and new Vegas put a lot of emphasis on dialogue choices and multiple solutions to Quests and encouraging the player to specialize rather than maxing everything out, whereas Bethesda's Fallouts are all about maxing everything out and the alternate choices i nquests tend to be rather bland and transparent dice rolls, and almost Token like inclusions. The only quest in Fo3 that had the branching quality of a Classic Fallout quest was the Tenpenny Tower quest with Roy Phillips, that one suffers more from bad writting but the multiple solutions to the quest are more in the spirit of the original, even the twist at the end would've worked just fine, it even gives you a reward that isn't combat oriented like all the other quests in FO3, where even choosing the "diplomatic" solution gives you a shotgun or a flamingsword as a reward.
 
Woah boys, Meat? Think of the triggered vegans that are killing insects on their tierdless crusade?

Anyways, on topic here. So, i feel you can determine the merits of story telling good and bad on a variety of things that can be proven on the ground of objectivity. For instance, what they eat can show a lot of how the devs care about their game. In fallout 3 they had no form of agriculture or irrigation to go along with it. They ate 200 year old food and managed not to have salmonella. They had a tech of a puritfier but for some reason instead of using the GECK to make fertile land and be able to have massive amount of crops that will be fed by precipitation and by that extent also solve hunger and recreate organic life.

We waste it on water that clearly isn't be used in the wasteland for farming.

We have a lot of issues that we can say FACTUALLY, OBJECTIVELY AND PROVEN that this is bad writing. Fallout 4 have vertibirds that were used in the trailer despite the fact that it wasn't put into commission until much later. So no, its not an opinion or not if a game is consistent. Logical, Reason and facts determine that.
 
Just going by numbers makes it very clear that Fallout 4 is automatically an inferior Fallout than previous games:

Number of Skills in the previous one? 17
Number of Skills in 4? 0

Number of possible dialogue choices: Up to 10 with many quests having additional skill checks that made your build important
Number of possibledialogue choices now? 4 MAXIMUM, with 2 word summaries for al lof them and a Dice roll "charm chance" that makes all dialogue interactiosn controlled by a single stat.

The game doesn't seem to even encourage players to think of their build as even a Stat on level 1 gives you rewards, and gameplay videos with a character with 1 on Endurance shows them soaking up a lot of shots even when wearing the basic vault suit.

Things we know are "better": Supposedly has better shooting mechanics, supposedly because they haven't actually showed the mechanics in depth, they have only shown quick action montages that don't even show Enemy AI, play by play cmbat sequences or even what to take in account when choosing weapons aganist specific types of enemies.
Graphics: A Given, altho they aren't that incredible compared to other "next gen" games.
Character VISUAL customization: It seems to be much less rigid than the Sliding bar spectacle from before.


Additional things:
Settlement Building, but we also know nothing about it besides the fact that you can put "pixel vault boy" neon signs with flamethrowers. We don't even know if they have any depth and dynamic mechanics or if they will be as contextual as the Wasteland Defense mod.

Conclusion:

We know a lot of the Negatives, as those are directly discarding series staples.
We know very little about the positives, and most of those are entirely related to making the game more of a shooter, something the original series never tried to be and something fans the of the original games weren't even interested in, and those fans are what put the games on the map.
Thus in general, people in this forum have very little to get excited about.
 
Last edited:
There has to be SOME way you can objectively compare the two games, right? Something has to exist. Then again it's not really fair to compare FO1/FO2 to FO3/FO4 because they're very different games.
 
I think it's pretty fair to compare them, on account of them using the name Fallout and calling themselves DIRECT sequels and not just Shooter spinoffs.
 
phipboy said:
There has to be SOME way you can objectively compare the two games, right? Something has to exist. Then again it's not really fair to compare FO1/FO2 to FO3/FO4 because they're very different games.
Click to expand...

Why not? When it comes to the visuals, like the graphic yeah I agree that is isn't really fair, just as how you don't compare visually Morrowind with Skyrim, it is a given that games with better hardware look better. That is a no brainer.

But most of the mechanics? Like writing, dialog, quest design, UI etc. Even if the UI of F1 and F2 was not the best, I would still say it was better suited for the PC compared to F3 for example. Fallout 1 had also a decent skill system for a game trying to emulate the PnP mechanics to the PC. Definetly better than Fallout 3. Fallout 1 had also better turn based combat compared to Fallout 3, well Fallout 3 had none ... but still.

You shouldn't be dogmatic about everything, but I think you can indeed compare the games on the principles of what makes a Fallout game a Fallout game.

If you come to the visual assets, like the Vault boy, the sceneray, there will be even a lot of people that say yes, Bethesda nailed that one pretty well. Their worlds definetly LOOK like Fallout in many cases, because their concept artists are top notch. But when it comes to the other parts that make Fallout which include also the gameplay, things start to look different.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Sadly I can't find the interview, but Todd Howard, Pete Hines and Emil talked in huge length about how they wanted to make a true Sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 with their game and not just a spin-off of some sorts.
Click to expand...

Is it this one? Since they mention here about wanting to make a true sequel.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Walpknut said:
Just going by numbers makes it very clear that Fallout 4 is automatically an inferior Fallout than previous games:

Number of Skills in the previous one? 17
Number of Skills in 4? 0

Number of possible dialogue choices: Up to 10 with many quests having additional skill checks that made your build important
Number of possibledialogue choices now? 4 MAXIMUM, with 2 word summaries for al lof them and a Dice roll "charm chance" that makes all dialogue interactiosn controlled by a single stat.

The game doesn't seem to even encourage players to think of their build as even a Stat on level 1 gives you rewards, and gameplay videos with a character with 1 on Endurance shows them soaking up a lot of shots even when wearing the basic vault suit.

Things we know are "better": Supposedly has better shooting mechanics, supposedly because they haven't actually showed the mechanics in depth, they have only shown quick action montages that don't even show Enemy AI, play by play cmbat sequences or even what to take in account when choosing weapons aganist specific types of enemies.
Graphics: A Given, altho they aren't that incredible compared to other "next gen" games.
Character VISUAL customization: It seems to be much less rigid than the Sliding bar spectacle from before.


Additional things:
Settlement Building, but we also know nothing about it besides the fact that you can put "pixel vault boy" neon signs with flamethrowers. We don't even know if they have any depth and dynamic mechanics or if they will be as contextual as the Wasteland Defense mod.

Conclusion:

We know a lot of the Negatives, as those are directly discarding series staples.
We know very little about the positives, and most of those are entirely related to making the game more of a shooter, something the original series never tried to be and something fans the of the original games weren't even interested in, and those fans are what put the games on the map.
Thus in general, people in this forum have very little to get excited about.
Click to expand...

Putting the skills in a black and white system like that disregards how the whole system has been reworked. Skills were not great in FO3 or NV and seem to have been melded into a better system, but it remains to be seen.

The dialogue worries me too personally, but again we don't know anything besides like...2 interactions. It could go deeper and/or change depending on stats, we don't know yet. So claiming it is X when you don't know yet is silly.

As for NMA being excited, who cares? You were never going to be unless Bethesda sold the rights and someone else made it. You won't like it, I guarantee it. So why even pay attention to it? I keep saying this because it baffles me. If a series/franchise moves in a direction I don't like (happens with bands all the time) I simply stop listening/paying attention and move on.
 
If this someone-else you're speaking about would have made a first person shooter like Bethesda? Than yeah, you can bet your ass on it that we would not have really liked it. But if no clue, a company like Obsidian got it and made it in the spirit of Pillars of Eternity or Wasteland 2? Who knows! So it just remains speculation.

And you're right about one thing. Who fucking cares what NMA thinks and does if we are excited or not. But apparantly YOU care enough to register here and to tell us to stop listening to it and paying attention and that we should move on ... seriously, why are you posting here again?
 
Crni Vuk said:
If this someone-else you're speaking about would have made a first person shooter like Bethesda? Than yeah, you can bet your ass on it that we would not have really liked it. But if no clue, a company like Obsidian got it and made it in the spirit of Pillars of Eternity or Wasteland 2? Who knows! So it just remains speculation.

And you're right about one thing. Who fucking cares what NMA thinks and does if we are excited or not. But apparantly YOU care enough to register here and to tell us to stop listening to it and paying attention and that we should move on ... seriously, why are you posting here again?
Click to expand...

I post here because I feel like it, do I need your permission or something? :V
 
Battlecross said:
Crni Vuk said:
If this someone-else you're speaking about would have made a first person shooter like Bethesda? Than yeah, you can bet your ass on it that we would not have really liked it. But if no clue, a company like Obsidian got it and made it in the spirit of Pillars of Eternity or Wasteland 2? Who knows! So it just remains speculation.

And you're right about one thing. Who fucking cares what NMA thinks and does if we are excited or not. But apparantly YOU care enough to register here and to tell us to stop listening to it and paying attention and that we should move on ... seriously, why are you posting here again?
Click to expand...

I post here because I feel like it, do I need your permission or something? :V
Click to expand...

That's quite alright, I do the same to other forums, not trolling but go against the common opinion.
 
He is posting here because we hurt his feelings my making him feel uninteligent for liking Fallout 3. I mean that says more about his self steem than about us being meanies.
 
Pre-release...

If Bethesda made a presentation without the countless amount of stupid gimmicks and plain bad systems like the dialogue and perks, then we would be optimistic about it.

Like this, we have every reason to be skeptical/pessimistic.

On release...

If the game turns out to be actually good, we'll like it and give Bethesda a chance in the future perhaps.

If the game turns out trash, we'll shit on them even further.

Why would people think we'd dislike the game if it turns out good just because we disliked the presentation?

This has nothing to do with Bethesda owning the rights. It's BGS making shitty games.
 
Battlecross said:
Crni Vuk said:
If this someone-else you're speaking about would have made a first person shooter like Bethesda? Than yeah, you can bet your ass on it that we would not have really liked it. But if no clue, a company like Obsidian got it and made it in the spirit of Pillars of Eternity or Wasteland 2? Who knows! So it just remains speculation.

And you're right about one thing. Who fucking cares what NMA thinks and does if we are excited or not. But apparantly YOU care enough to register here and to tell us to stop listening to it and paying attention and that we should move on ... seriously, why are you posting here again?
Click to expand...

I post here because I feel like it, do I need your permission or something? :V
Click to expand...

No, you can post where ever you want. But telling people to "let go" in here is probably one of the fastest way to get labeled as troll. Hey, I am just trying to warn you that your attitude won't get you any respect here and always picking fights for no reason got people also banned here a couple of times, because we heard that stuff a billion times already ... like yes we know Bethesda, the World, gaming etc. doesn't care about us. Big deal! Like we ever demanded attention. Sadly it's usually not that we go around preaching, but that very often People register here to lecture us. NMA? Oh that is this shitty place where everyone hates the new Fallouts! Seeing us as some kind of hive mind or what ever ...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top