Fallout 4 News

poop its still got a 360/ps3 version which means it wont be everything it could have been. especially since its target is a 2015 release. guess we will be putting up with 360/ps3 ports until atleast 2016/17 unless they are first party games.
 
Wildace said:
poop its still got a 360/ps3 version which means it wont be everything it could have been. especially since its target is a 2015 release. guess we will be putting up with 360/ps3 ports until atleast 2016/17 unless they are first party games.
Click to expand...

As longs as the gameplay is good I'll be happy, state of the art graphics don't concern me too much.
 
hopefully they phase out ps3/xbox 360 out of it, will hinder it too much.

Co op, would be interesting, I always run around with companions anyways, as long as the person isn't annoying and it has good implementation.
 
Rizen said:
Why? Playing through the game with a friend would be awesome. I'd love to play through this with my girlfriend.
Click to expand...

Fans of the whole series note that the wasteland is a desolate and lonely place. Unless your co-op partner can join opposing factions and wage dynamic quest war on you, it doesn't fit the setting.
 
Fuckin Boston? Really?

Great, now we get to hear raiders talk with an even deeper Bostonian accent this time, maybe they should just call it , Good Will Hunting 4.

:mad:

I agree with the previous poster, Keep it on the west coast.

I just hope its not another 100 or 200 years into the future and were still walking around collecting (and eating!) tv dinners or boxes of cereal. Bethesda devs need to sit down and actually think about time, this time around.
 
Last edited:
LeninGHOLA said:
Fans of the whole series note that the wasteland is a desolate and lonely place. Unless your co-op partner can join opposing factions and wage dynamic quest war on you, it doesn't fit the setting.
Click to expand...

The Fallout games let you have companions. No different playing in coop.
 
ADRENALIN_2099 said:
Is it just me or was new Vegas better than fallout 3?
Click to expand...

New Vegas was way better than Fallout 3. Partially because you had Josh Sawyer and Chis Avellone working on it, thus the dialog was better and overall mood of the game.
 
Q-BZ said:
That has potential if executed well and if it doesn't at the expense of other, more important aspects of the game.
Click to expand...

Mainly my point was that I don't really care about the game unless it's PC, and local PC co-op sucks.

Hell, even split-screen co-op on consoles sucks most of the time.
 
ADRENALIN_2099 said:
Is it just me or was new Vegas better than fallout 3?
Click to expand...

I liked them both,though New Vegas took a grittier,more realistic approach. In Fallout 3,the Brotherhood of Steel were traditional good guys,in New Vegas,there are many shades of gray,no faction is perfect.
 
ADRENALIN_2099 said:
Is it just me or was new Vegas better than fallout 3?
Click to expand...

I liked them both,though New Vegas took a grittier,more realistic approach. In Fallout 3,the Brotherhood of Steel were traditional good guys,in New Vegas,there are many shades of gray,no faction is perfect.
 
Krenum said:
New Vegas was way better than Fallout 3. Partially because you had Josh Sawyer and Chis Avellone working on it, thus the dialog was better and overall mood of the game.
Click to expand...

Oh look desert!! Oh look MORE desert! The graphics are so great that we can make better looking desert than ever before!! AND MORE desert!!! F'ing stab my eyes out before I play another FPS/RPG Fallout set in a desert. Hell Skyrim at least had drop dead beautiful outdoor scenics even before modding. Yes please let us throw all that away...and have another eye-bleeding desert-set game.

The dialogue was a mixed bag IMHO. All the "bad guys" on the strip should have watched any gangster movie...ANY gangster movie. Because all of them sounded and acted like chicken shit high schoolers and not gangsters. The endings sucked too, but that is another matter. I could only stand a few FONV playthroughs because of the bad faction choices and setting-unlike FO3.
 
Skripka said:
Oh look desert!! Oh look MORE desert! The graphics are so great that we can make better looking desert than ever before!! AND MORE desert!!! F'ing stab my eyes out before I play another FPS/RPG Fallout set in a desert. Hell Skyrim at least had drop dead beautiful outdoor scenics even before modding. Yes please let us throw all that away...and have another eye-bleeding desert-set game.

The dialogue was a mixed bag IMHO. All the "bad guys" on the strip should have watched any gangster movie...ANY gangster movie. Because all of them sounded and acted like chicken shit high schoolers and not gangsters. The endings sucked too, but that is another matter. I could only stand a few FONV playthroughs because of the bad faction choices and setting-unlike FO3.
Click to expand...

There were no real faction choices in Fallout 3. The binary ways you could solve the main quest were uninspired and didn't fit in the Fallout universe (nor did the story, at all).

NV was supposed to take place in a desert, because that's where the wasteland is.

I think the breakdown is that you're not a fan of Fallout games, but just a fan of Bethesda games.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Companions don't make story choices or take an active role in the gameworld.
Click to expand...
If you're playing co-op with a friend how would that be any different than a companion, e.g. Borderlands style play? I really don't see a difference. No one is proposing making it open-world shard style MMO.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
There were no real faction choices in Fallout 3. The binary ways you could solve the main quest were uninspired and didn't fit in the Fallout universe (nor did the story, at all).

NV was supposed to take place in a desert, because that's where the wasteland is.

I think the breakdown is that you're not a fan of Fallout games, but just a fan of Bethesda games.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...NV wasn't a nuclear wasteland unlike DC, it was just an empty desert like it is right now. You should review your FONV lore, because I'm fairly certain (been forever since I thought about it) the entire setup for the game was that NV was the one major population center in the USA NOT leveled into radioactive craters by global nuclear war. So no NV was not a wasteland in the game-just a mostly empty desert.

FO3 wasn't perfect or necessarily FO traditionally strict by other means...but FONV left a ton to be desired.
 
Skripka said:
Hmmm...NV wasn't a nuclear wasteland unlike DC, it was just an empty desert like it is right now. You should review your FONV lore, because I'm fairly certain (been forever since I thought about it) the entire setup for the game was that NV was the one major population center in the USA NOT leveled into radioactive craters by global nuclear war. So no NV was not a wasteland in the game-just a mostly empty desert.

FO3 wasn't perfect or necessarily FO traditionally strict by other means...but FONV left a ton to be desired.
Click to expand...

I liked both FO3 and FONV. You are correct about Nevada not being hit directly by nuclear weapons. The condition of NV was supposed to mostly be from nuclear fallout blowing over from other atomic weapon strikes and lack of proper upkeep.

But let's be honest here: FO3 and FONV were made by (or with) Bethesda's Elder Scrolls engine, which mostly gave you a simple binary choice most of the time: Choose to do something, or not to do something. Honestly, I thought the games were a lot of fun for what they were.
 
Skripka said:
Hmmm...NV wasn't a nuclear wasteland unlike DC, it was just an empty desert like it is right now. You should review your FONV lore, because I'm fairly certain (been forever since I thought about it) the entire setup for the game was that NV was the one major population center in the USA NOT leveled into radioactive craters by global nuclear war. So no NV was not a wasteland in the game-just a mostly empty desert.

FO3 wasn't perfect or necessarily FO traditionally strict by other means...but FONV left a ton to be desired.
Click to expand...

I didn't say NV was a nuclear wasteland. It is the greater Wasteland area. Fallout always was about the Southwestern deserts. Putting Fallout on the east coast is like putting Mad Max in Canada.
 
I don't mind the locale, although with the American history angle, I can see this being a little similar to Fallout 3.
While I'm a hair biased, I always though Denver would make for a fun locale. Between all of the UFO/Illuminati stuff with the airport, NORAD & Cheyenne Mountain, various military bases, and varied terrain - they'd have a lot to work with.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I didn't say NV was a nuclear wasteland. It is the greater Wasteland area. Fallout always was about the Southwestern deserts. Putting Fallout on the east coast is like putting Mad Max in Canada.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Wasteland is a general term, not to be confused with Nuclear Wasteland. If they are going to put it in another sprawling metropolis, Bethesda seriously needs to look at what Metro 2033, Last Light and even Crysis 3 have done with environments.
 
Krenum said:
Agreed.

Wasteland is a general term, not to be confused with Nuclear Wasteland. If they are going to put it in another sprawling metropolis, Bethesda seriously needs to look at what Metro 2033, Last Light and even Crysis 3 have done with environments.
Click to expand...

I thought New Reno in Fallout 2 fit the bill very nicely.
 
i liked fallout 3 better then vegas. i thought the story was significantly better.. i will say that because i live in vegas that made new vegas really fun to play. they had lots of real places in there.. i loved how they had primm with the rollercoaster and everything.
 
I loved FO3 over NV, the environment looked better, I felt more connected to the story and the tone was just overall darker and more claustrophobic in general. I couldn't stand the constant vast empty brown wasteland, it got boring real quick which is why I never finished NV.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Companions don't make story choices or take an active role in the gameworld.
Click to expand...

How does that make playing coop different? You will still have to make a choice to either lead or follow.

Seems to me reading this thread that you just disagree with everybody because you have this idealized version of Fallout in your head and that's how things must be.
 
Wherever they base the game,I hope there's no subway system! The one thing that bugged me with Fallout 3 was wandering around the same boring tunnels to get to areas in cities. Unlike STALKER,where the underground could be downright scarey,the subway was just irritating,it was like they were just there for filler.
 
Teenk9 said:
How does that make playing coop different? You will still have to make a choice to either lead or follow.

Seems to me reading this thread that you just disagree with everybody because you have this idealized version of Fallout in your head and that's how things must be.
Click to expand...

So one player would be progressing the story and making the choices, and the other would sit idly by like a companion in Fable? Almost all of the fun in Fallout comes from the story, setting and role playing elements. Not shooting shit up with your buddies.

I appreciate story, continuity and theme. These things are important in this type of game. It's actually the whole reason the series was created. Unfortunately I don't see Bethesda creating a Fallout game that captures any of the feel from the first two. They are gamists, not role players. They pander and use cheap storytelling hooks to appeal to other gamists who wouldn't care if the series was Borderlands or Fallout.

The original Fallout game was unique at the time in that you could complete the game without ever killing a single enemy. You actually role played. You could be a persuasive, sneaky leader type, a thieving tricky bastard or just your typical combat soldier. Bethesda cuts out those elements in their games (since Morrowind) in favor of accessible and streamlined gamey type games with one or two outcomes. Fallout always favored consequence for your actions and varying ways to complete story arcs. This was not the case with FO3.
 
MavericK96 said:
"May include local co-op options"? Wtf?

Who wants local co-op?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Co-Op is one of the biggest lacking features of most games, IMO.

Games i would love to play co-op:

Mount & Blade
Skyrim
Fallout
Dragon Age Origins
KotoR
Shining Force
Divinity 2

..basically any RPG lol

edit:

OH YEA STALKER!!!
 
Not every games need to be multiplayer co-op.

In games like Fallout or Elder Scrolls, you are supposed to be that special person who came into the picture at that moment while some conflict is going on, and you play a major role in the outcome of whatever's going on. Similar to Gordon Freeman in Half Life, he's a unique character who had a major effect on the event that was taking place. Not just one out of a bunch of people running around.

You can't co-op in these setting, not unless the story is linear where it doesn't matter who chose what. Not in an open world RPG game.
 
Hornet said:
Not every games need to be multiplayer co-op.

In games like Fallout or Elder Scrolls, you are supposed to be that special person who came into the picture at that moment while some conflict is going on, and you play a major role in the outcome of whatever's going on. Similar to Gordon Freeman in Half Life, he's a unique character who had a major effect on the event that was taking place. Not just one out of a bunch of people running around.

You can't co-op in these setting, not unless the story is linear where it doesn't matter who chose what. Not in an open world RPG game.
Click to expand...

It worked in Baldur's Gate, you just designated one character as the main for plot purposes and they handed all of the story and quest interaction. I think taking that approach to it would work just fine in the cases you mentioned.
 
Sgraffite said:
It worked in Baldur's Gate, you just designated one character as the main for plot purposes and they handed all of the story and quest interaction. I think taking that approach to it would work just fine in the cases you mentioned.
Click to expand...

It worked fine because of the technology limitations of the time. Plus, there were no factions to side with or big choices to make. The game was fairly linear. Now, playing the silent second seat is boring and adds very little. Especially in a sandbox.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
It worked fine because of the technology limitations of the time. Plus, there were no factions to side with or big choices to make. The game was fairly linear. Now, playing the silent second seat is boring and adds very little. Especially in a sandbox.
Click to expand...

I'd still disagree. If it's local co-op, shit can be a joint decision. It doesn't really matter if one person is the 'main' or whatever, if you're both in the same room or on vent, it would work fine and would also likely be the easiest to implement.

I don't remember which game it was, but there was a game coming out or maybe is out which had co op dialogue. Depending on what one person would say, it'd change for the other person, etc. Both their input was required to continue quests etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top