Setting Fallout 4 Part 1 (of 2) – How the West Was Fun

[Mrxknown]

If the progression (or lack thereof) from Oblivion to Skyrim is any indication of what will be done from Fallout 3 to 4 then it seems we are doomed to receive rehashed ideas/themes/factions/graphics that will be obvious and trite with a plot line that will feel pigeon holed in Boston (if that is indeed where the setting will be)

At least it seems the graphics improved. Never played Skyrim so I don't know if the animations or dialogue is still weird.

On-topic: I don't feel bad that F3 and FNV were in one central area F3 was not only in DC. It took us into Virginia, Maryland, and then DC.

I lived in NC when I first played F3 and now I have lived in DC for the last 2 years. I've recognized places like Falls Church, Wolf Trap, etc.

Sure the maps in either FNV or F3 weren't exact or to scale. But that's fine.

They just couldn't have as many location s because they had to do all of it in 3D instead of just having to walk on a map between locations so you could going all over Southern CA, but in a full 3D game it's not that easy.

It's especially difficult to do that with the engine Bethesda was using. I'm so hoping for the next Fallout game to have a better engine.

I've never been impressed with Bethesda's work. Though I admit I couldn't do it better on my own.

 

[Dr. Combat Shotgun]

The main problem with this 3D-shit is you are never going to get the feeling of isolation, hunger, loneliness etc... which are all pretty important parts of the postapoc experience of fallout. NVs idea of survival-skill and HC-mode were good ideas but gameplaywise pretty meh. Unless someone suddenly take over bethsoft all we are going to see is Skyrim: greyscaled

 

[person]

Is there so little faith in Bethesda that we think they're gonna base a $10 million game on MIT? I'm depressed.

 

[Crni Vuk]

They just couldn't have as many location s because they had to do all of it in 3D instead of just having to walk on a map between locations so you could going all over Southern CA, but in a full 3D game it's not that easy.

the question is if it is really needed anyway.

To say this first, I don't have a problem with open end sand box games. If they go down that route. But what I never understood why Fallout 3 was "good" because it had so much empty space you could visit or trave to. I mean was this what made the game really better in the end? People say they enjoy this, and then they end up "fast traveling" to all locations anyway ...

I don't mind a well done wasteland/area. But only if it servers actually a purpose. I say they don't need to make it all visible even if its 3D.

Not completely the same game, but still with 3D, Drakensang made it pretty well. They had areas to explore and a huge nice scenery. You could only explore the small area that was loaded but the world "felt" very big.

Similar like Fallout 1 and 2. Imagination can be a great tool. Fallout 3 lacks it completely. Not just because of the way how Beth designs their games.

The main problem with this 3D-shit is you are never going to get the feeling of isolation, hunger, loneliness etc... which are all pretty important parts of the postapoc experience of fallout. NVs idea of survival-skill and HC-mode were good ideas but gameplaywise pretty meh. Unless someone suddenly take over bethsoft all we are going to see is Skyrim: greyscaled

It can work. If done well.

You have to place the borders correctly though, not making the player walking in invisible walls. You have to come up eventually with a coherent and good transportion system. Or even a kind of world map. I mean what speaks against it to use 3D and a world map for traveling around? Drakensang had it. It was awesome when it comes to that. The world never feelt small because it was 3D.

 

[Lexx]

I would have loved a Fallout game which features a city like the Boneyard, but a town travel system like Vampire Bloodlines. This kind of combines old and new worlds into one, at least in this aspect.

 

[Alphadrop]

That would work, heck I love hub based travel as it allows much more detail and depth while still retaining a sense of size and scale.
An entire Fallout game set in one city would be interesting, could be a post apocalyptic film noir... o.k getting carried away.

 

[person]

Think about how much time they wouldn't have to waste copying buildings and terrain to the tee if they made their own damn city. Shacks, tents, caves all inhabited by wanderers and such. If they're going for realism you'd think they could be more realistic.

 

[Walpknut]

That would work, heck I love hub based travel as it allows much more detail and depth while still retaining a sense of size and scale.
An entire Fallout game set in one city would be interesting, could be a post apocalyptic film noir... o.k getting carried away.

Or a Fallout set in a big city of the NCR, that would be Post Apoc Noir.

 

[Wretched Flamingo]

Once again... Fallout: Vice City.

 

[TorontoReign]

Once again... Fallout: Vice City.

Not a bad idea really. How about Fallout: New Reno? I could dig it.

 

[4too]

Voting With Their Feet

Voting With Their Feet

... so much empty space you could visit or trave(l) to. ... People say they enjoy this, and then they end up "fast traveling" to all locations anyway ...

Maybe B-Soft could / should , will / would offer Fast Travel individually as the 4th or 5th DLC, and all the 'f-ee' world, endless 'pace devotees can prove their love of hiking with achievements on this virtual treadmill.

Maybe a 1,000 mile in game pedometer count could unlock the option to buy!



4too

 

[zegh8578]

I've always been curious of the Fallout 1/2 locations seen in 1st person. Obviously, this wouldn't be a popular enough idea to actually make real, but... It woulda been kinda cool. Even a shithole like The Den would be a sizeable little town, as it's described as having thousands of inhabitants - NCR would be enormous, not to mention the endless ruins surrounding San Fransisco, or Los Angeles.

 

[Lexx]

It would be really bad. Simply because it will never be as it is in your mind. Also a lot Fo1/2 locations are abstract in their size- smaller in the game than they really should be. So a true 1:1 rebuild makes not much sense and as soon as you start imagining new stuff to the locations, they won't be the ones you remember / you have in your mind anymore. Then you can as well simply take a location that was never done before and have more creative freedom.

 

[zegh8578]

You are very likely correct about that. It still would be cool... IF... it was just like you dreamed it would be :/

 

[cunningandvalor]

IGN's doing what appears to be a completely random ranking of the top 100 rpgs of all time. New Vegas is number 89, Fallout is 34, Fallout 2 is 28... They're revealing 20-1 tomorrow, I'm guessing they'll rank Fallout 3 in the top 5 for some ungodly reason.

God I hate IGN...

EDIT: Oh, here's the link if anyone cares. You shouldn't though. http://www.ign.com/top/rpgs

 

[Mrxknown]

Think about how much time they wouldn't have to waste copying buildings and terrain to the tee if they made their own damn city. Shacks, tents, caves all inhabited by wanderers and such. If they're going for realism you'd think they could be more realistic.

What makes you think they are going for realism?

The franchise is about a alternate universe where the 50s vision of the future still happened but also becomes tainted by Cold War like scenario where the bombs wind up falling.

Not to mention all the crazy science from movies in the 50s.

What part of any Fallout game made you think it was going for realism?

Trust me, Fallout 3's DC metro area was not to a tee. Fallout: New Vegas' area I'm sure wasn't to a tee.

But no matter where the next game goes (unless dictated by story) the geography will be similar by pretty bare bones.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well considering the interviews and informations we have they wanted to go with "immersion". Hence why they chose "first person" as the primary gameplay.

Make out of it what ever you want.

 

[Tagaziel]

What makes you think they are going for realism?

The franchise is about a alternate universe where the 50s vision of the future still happened but also becomes tainted by Cold War like scenario where the bombs wind up falling.

Not to mention all the crazy science from movies in the 50s.

What part of any Fallout game made you think it was going for realism?

Realism, i.e. plausibility. Retrofuturistic science is an integral part of the setting, much like magic etc. is a part of fantasy setting. What's not part of the setting is silly, implausible content that goes in the face of common sense, logic and sociopolitical dynamics. E.g. half of Fallout 3. And all of Little Lamplight.

 

[Jabberwok]

I just want Bethesda to stay on the east coast, far far away from the west coast. They would just fuck up the lore on the west even more.

I just want Bethesda to stay at arms length from Fallout in general, and outsource it to Obsidian again. The Fallout 3 story feels like it's not part of the same series.

Having spent a lot of time in the Southwest, I totally agree with what this article has to say about it, and its connection to Fallout. The best parts of the series draw heavily from Westerns, and it works. A lot of these elements could be used anywhere, but even the twangy accents make it feel more like Fallout to me.

The setting and history of the series are part of what set it apart from the plethora of other post-apocalyptic media nowadays.

 

[person]

Think about how much time they wouldn't have to waste copying buildings and terrain to the tee if they made their own damn city. Shacks, tents, caves all inhabited by wanderers and such. If they're going for realism you'd think they could be more realistic.

What makes you think they are going for realism?

To hell if I can find the interview, but most of the Todd Howard interviews I read before Fallout 3 came to fruition was his dedication to the novel The Road by Cormac McCarthy, to which he claimed all employees had to read and incorporate into the game design for the purpose of "that desperate feeling that The Road made you feel, like you were all alone, trying to survive," or whatever the hell he said (it was a lot like that).

They always claimed to be about realism, including Josh Sawyer when making New Vegas. Interplay and Black Isle were having fun. Bethesda was 'aiming' for something different entirely.

Besides, what the hell? What I said made sense, they certainly spent too much time trying to copy the cities piece by piece.