More Fallout 4 rumoring from Kotaku

[Walpknut]

In one of my concepts for a Fallout game I only included 3 Super Mutants in total, and they were just vagrant ones escaping from California that end up separated in different parts of the region after some internal dispute and further persecution by mercs that don't even know what the hell they are.

 

[Yazman]

apples and oranges. Fallout can work without the BoS. What happens when you try to squeze them in at all costs can be seen in F3, where I never felt like the BoS should have been in the capital wasteland, together with the Supermutants and the Enclave.

Really? you ACTUALLY don't think that the Enclave, an organisation that was initially founded by the US government and thereafter comprised of its descendants - one that claims to BE the US government - wouldn't have some sort of presence in the nation's capital? I agree the BOS and Supermutants didn't really belong but the Enclave definitely belonged there more than any faction in the game.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Actually the Enclave was a shadow organization within in the US government, more like a secret society. Sure some of its members were also part of the legitimate government but the US government didn't found the Enclave.
Also, why would the Enclave stick around in a location that would be an obvious target, and be rendered useless for decades to come.
The West coast provided many resources the Enclave could use to build a new United States, plus the Poseidon Oil Rig, a command, military, and manufacturing center that would provide them with security and isolation.

 

[Walpknut]

People keep up the misconception that the Enclave was literally the goverment... guess FO3 is at fault for not explainning them properly while hammering them into the heads of new players.

 

[Emperor]

My Fallout game set on Seattle only mentions 3 Enclave members that alongside from personal from Poseidon Energy created the local high tech group.

We are probably going to hear something about FO4 on PAX Boston (Just a hunch, because of the location)

 

[Yamu]

Realistically speaking, there are probably teched-up paramilitary groups scattered all across the Wasteland that can trace their origins back to pre-war combat units or garrisons, and if Bethsoft (or anyone) wanted a Brotherhood analogue more than a couple of hundred miles from Lost Hills, they'd probably do better to just invent one. I've done it myself (on varying scales) for multiple abortive projects. It's not ripping the original off-- it's not only a plausible concept, but a genre staple that's almost to be expected. Fallout itself all but took the concept whole-cloth from Wasteland's Guardians of the Old Order, and as far back as Fallout 1 we heard tell of the Union of Atomic Workers, who were "like the Brotherhood, but less friendly."

From Bethsoft's standpoint, though, if they do go that way, whiny FO3 fanboys and whiny original-series diehards alike will never, ever stop complaining about how they're just ripping off the Enclave/Brotherhood, or comparing the new groups unfavorably to the old. I've been guilty of the latter myself, summing The Institute up as just a high-tech boogeyman to replace The Enclave with, even after all the times I'd complained about Beth never trying to step away from established factions in F3. I can see how they might think they'd do better just sticking with an iconic group whose inclusion fosters brand recognition with fans of the modern series.

 

[Deleted member 62454]

apples and oranges. Fallout can work without the BoS. What happens when you try to squeze them in at all costs can be seen in F3, where I never felt like the BoS should have been in the capital wasteland, together with the Supermutants and the Enclave.

I said optional small settlements like in New Vegas. Those factions in New Vegas doesn't feel forced at all.

Forgive my arrogance and self promotion but in my Fallout Texas concept the Brotherhood and the Enclave aren't even present, only some of their tech is, and the setting works just fine without them as there is another tech faction to replace them with its own agenda (post humanism)
There are Super Mutants but they are more like the ones of FNV than the armies of Fallout 1 and Fallout 3, having long since accepted that their mission of conquering the wasteland and replacing regular humans as the dominant lifeform is a failure.

As others here already stated, the BOS and the Enclave, or Super Mutants are not necessary to make a Fallout game. The comparison with the Terminator movies is not a valid one. (I hate the idea of more Terminator movies but they can make stories that do not involve the T-800 model but a complete different model terminator)

You contradict yourself here, you said BoS, SM and Enclave (I didn't mention those guys, but whatever) aren't needed to make a Fallout game, but you make a fanfic with BoS and SM in other skin. In the end, if Beth decides to not include BoS and SM, they will replace them with similar factions, and I prefer the original ones rather than some wannabes.

Come on, the real reason you guys have against those factions are their mainstream level, nothing more.

 

[Walpknut]

that's not a contradiction, the BOS and SM themselves aren't needed, their basic premise can be used and can be fit into the setting while changing enough to make them completely different. On the other hand just keep sticking the BOS and SMs in every game just to have brand recognition on the other hand stretches the internal logic of the setting and promoves stagnation of ideas.

 

[Yamu]

Come on, the real reason you guys have against those factions are their mainstream level, nothing more.

It's not an issue of how "mainstream" they are in the sense that you're thinking. It's the fact that they're so accepted as a necessary part of things now, so expected now. Really, ask yourself: why would you prefer the original ones, even if in most places having them there in any noticeable capacity (or having them there at all) would make so little sense? Every time they copy+paste original west coast (which are now, I suppose, also east coast) factions onto another part of the map, the world is going to feel a little smaller, a little less believable. There's no good reason to have the Brotherhood (for instance) in a region when it would be far easier and more logical to justify the existence of a similar paramilitary group instead, one more tied into the local setting. And why does it have to be supermutants, when there are so many other interesting (and, if you must, functionally similar) dangers you could feasibly introduce into a world whose entire pre-war military-industrial complex was focused on advancing the frontiers of NBC warfare, unconventional infantry support, and robotics?

The longer it takes Bethsoft to ween people off of core-region factions and entities, the staler the world will become and the pissier people will be when they do eventually branch out into making the east coast truly their own setting. I'm hoping they realize that, and that most fans of the more recent games do too.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I said optional small settlements like in New Vegas. Those factions in New Vegas doesn't feel forced at all.

That's why it depends on the story and location. You should not try to squeze the Brotherhood in the game just for the sake of having them. Imagine if Fallout 4 would play in Alaska, the state of New York or some place in the north east of the USA. It would not make much sense in my opinion to have the BoS there, even less if its just a small settlement. Nev Vegas is relatively close to the other regions (like the Boneyard or San Francisco), and they are relatively close to the borders of the NCR.

As said. If it makes sense from writing? Sure why not. But dont get them in just because of the idea that they always belong to Fallout. A good Fallout game could work completely without the BoS. They have been so far a focus of so many Fallout games, that they feel in my opinion completely stale, Tactics was focused completely on them, Fallout 3 made them a huge part of the game, except for F2 where they didnt played really a huge role. Fallout 2 could have been just as good without any BoS even. For me Fallout is about the factions, how they survive and interact with each other and the player. Thats why it is good to get new factions once in a while and moving away from something like the BoS. It doesnt mean we have to outright forget them, just giving them a rest for some time.

 

[Deleted member 62454]

It's not an issue of how "mainstream" they are in the sense that you're thinking. It's the fact that they're so accepted as a necessary part of things now, so expected now. Really, ask yourself: why would you prefer the original ones, even if in most places having them there in any noticeable capacity (or having them there at all) would make so little sense? Every time they copy+paste original west coast (which are now, I suppose, also east coast) factions onto another part of the map, the world is going to feel a little smaller, a little less believable. There's no good reason to have the Brotherhood (for instance) in a region when it would be far easier and more logical to justify the existence of a similar paramilitary group instead, one more tied into the local setting. And why does it have to be supermutants, when there are so many other interesting (and, if you must, functionally similar) dangers you could feasibly introduce into a world whose entire pre-war military-industrial complex was focused on advancing the frontiers of NBC warfare, unconventional infantry support, and robotics?

The longer it takes Bethsoft to ween people off of core-region factions and entities, the staler the world will become and the pissier people will be when they do eventually branch out into making the east coast truly their own setting. I'm hoping they realize that, and that most fans of the more recent games do too.

You said this:

From Bethsoft's standpoint, though, if they do go that way, whiny FO3 fanboys and whiny original-series diehards alike will never, ever stop complaining about how they're just ripping off the Enclave/Brotherhood, or comparing the new groups unfavorably to the old.

That's why I prefer the original ones, because Beth will try to replace them. If they do another power armored group, they will do it with BoS in mind. Same with SM. In the end, we will have some ersatz factions rather than something new.

 

[Yamu]

I can understand that. For my part, I'd rather have them sully the name of new stand-in factions rather than keep adulterating the old ones if they're going to continue in the same vein. If we have to have someone running around the wasteland acting like Ye Chivalrous Knights of Olde, I say let it be the Circle of Titanium or the Citadel of Iron rather than the Brotherhood of Steel. Same with muties, if they're going to keep treating them like ogres from a Grimm tale.

My fonder hope, though, and one that I believe they're capable of realizing, is that in having to work with their own factions, Bethesda will be more comfortable building from the ground up and it will show. Ask most people what the best F3 add-on was, and they'll either tell you it was The Pitt or Point Lookout. Many (especially fans more concerned with writing and verisimilitude than exploration) considered them the best parts of the game, period. And what did they have in common? They were full of new people, places, and things, and hardly touched on the established canon at all. I'm trying to give these people the benefit of the doubt here, even if The Institute's androids alone make it a desperate internal struggle.

 

[smber2cnma]

That's why I prefer the original ones, because Beth will try to replace them. If they do another power armored group, they will do it with BoS in mind. Same with SM. In the end, we will have some ersatz factions rather than something new.

I'd prefer new groups for several reasons.
#1 - new means truly don't know what to expect, we get new groups to interact with and learn about. Carrying BoS, Enclave or whomever to new games means carrying player's expectations. Sure they can toy with our expectations a bit by having a soldier that doesn't conform in the group, but overall the group will follow a style, order, and mission very similar to previous iterations - making learning about them less intriguing than wondering about the new factions when went and tried STALKER of Metro.

#2 - it hurts suspension of disbelief because they need to be shoehorned into whatever the new setting will be. Game in Boston - uh...Enclave went there to kidnap brainy scientists. And BOS went...because we think they are the Enclave's traditional foil? No? Okay they went because old pre-war records were found at Stanford telling of a super advanced robotics lab that MIT was initiating in their Engineering Schools sub-basement.
That might work for 1 setting, but they contrived reasons for the next game in Florida, then one in Texas, then one in Chicago, then New Orleans. It just gets to be such a messy story.

#3 - it breaks this "post-apocalyptic" notion if we have multiple organizations that are so organized that they have bases across the entire USA and can launch missions that range 1000's of miles. If the Brotherhood and Enclave are really that powerful and organized then I don't really think the genera designation is relevant anymore. Dysantopian maybe, but not post-apocalyptic. You're talking about 2 groups that employ thousands (tens of thousands?) of individuals in a continental empire. Plus the NCR has tens of thousands of citizens living in very organized fashion.

It weakens the setting's initial premise of survival in a dangerous/unruly world. These factions become too powerful, making the world too tame and stories are less about survival of isolated communities and instead about the tilt of power between various power factions.

 

[DustyTraveller]

Same here. That's why The Vault chose to report on it not as OMGBREAKINGNEWSAGAIN (we reserve that for actual Fallout 4 announcements ), but encouraging skepticism. It helps that the Wasteland 2 beta got released, which is just awesome.

Aren't "Encouraging Skepticism" NMA-Fallout's default stance on any Fallout-sequel news since the first one? With varying degrees of encouragement of course.

One detail I like, erhm I mean "remain hopeful about", is that the game is NOT set 300+ years after the war. The destroyed buildings & lands will now fit into the same era as the game is set in. We'll just have to wait and see if there's any substance to these rumors and what the real game will bring.

I wouldn't mind a story of where you start of as part of a functioning army with bases, vehicles and air support but as the game progresses you'll loose more and more of that as supplies dry out, soldiers desert and enemies attack. Nukes, betrayals and bio-warfare take their toll. In the end it will be you, a motorcycle helmet and a chainsaw with 10 days worth of fuel against the rest of the wasteland.
Not sure of how a fun game that would make though.

 

[Tagaziel]

Aren't "Encouraging Skepticism" NMA-Fallout's default stance on any Fallout-sequel news since the first one? With varying degrees of encouragement of course.

Skepticism is always good.

I wouldn't mind a story of where you start of as part of a functioning army with bases, vehicles and air support but as the game progresses you'll loose more and more of that as supplies dry out, soldiers desert and enemies attack. Nukes, betrayals and bio-warfare take their toll. In the end it will be you, a motorcycle helmet and a chainsaw with 10 days worth of fuel against the rest of the wasteland.
Not sure of how a fun game that would make though.

Awesome. That would be awesome.

 

[smber2cnma]

I wouldn't mind a story of where you start of as part of a functioning army with bases, vehicles and air support but as the game progresses you'll loose more and more of that as supplies dry out, soldiers desert and enemies attack. Nukes, betrayals and bio-warfare take their toll. In the end it will be you, a motorcycle helmet and a chainsaw with 10 days worth of fuel against the rest of the wasteland.
Not sure of how a fun game that would make though.

I think that could make an amazing game, but I don't think it will ever come from Bethesda. They are very fixed on certain aspects of their RPGs that will always make them feel shallow.
#1 - I don't think they'll every use a timer. Their design choices suggest they think one should be able to explore every nook & cranny of 1 house, 1 town, or the entire map without the story progressing in the slightest until you click in the right NPC. Many think this is a feature, but it kills any urgency which is tragic because it's just that sort of emotion/pressure that helps us forget it's a game and start thinking "oh shit I've gotta hurry or my boys are toast".
#2 - Beth focus too much on people getting to collect clutter and feel more & more powerful. Clutter collection is one of those terrible things that people think they want because they do it in every Beth RPG, but if they step back and consider it for a second most players aren't actually having that much fun doing it (like farming on MMORPGs). It's more of an addiction than a joy. Bethesda RPGs have very few if any moments that are memorable, because they aren't about the playing facing struggle and choices like the scenario above would present, they are about getting more stuff (gold, trophies, weapons, spells, guild ranks). It's why when I youtube their RPGs I get a flood of "check out my house and how cool I positioned my armor" videos. Their games are the video game version of hoarders and your scenario would be the exact opposite of this core mechanic of Oblivion, Skyrim, & FO3.
#3 - It would just be too different. Bethesda is painfully formulaic. They have a system that makes them millions and millions so why monkey with it. Sure many players will gripe, but they can increase production values just enough that most the old players will buy it grudgingly and a whole generation that don't really understand depth of plot/character will also join the purchase base with great enthusiasm.