• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fallout 4

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
So long as it isn't 'Fallout online' I will definitely be very interested, and quite probably buy (never commit until at least some reviews/details are forthcoming).

I am also very excited about Wasteland 2 so....
 
Overhead is not the way to go for FO4. I think FO3 and NV did good getting away from the old style of view
 
Well there is always fallout Online 2238 if you are willing to try a new twist on a nostalgic classic to pass the time for F4. Basically they took F2 and made it multiplayer online kind of like old school Ultima Online style. It is practically in perma beta, but I found it diverting.
 
Bethesda has just been remaking the same game over and over again with slight tweaks here and there for years. So when they acquired the Fallout license they decided to gussy up another of their clones and shoe horn it in. My problem is that the games industry in general right now just wants to congeal almost every IP into just a few cookie cutter formats, because it makes for a safe investment. So watching yet another IP get funneled into this gelatinous grey mush is just sad to see.
 
SantaAna12 said:
"I preferred the cityscapes in FO3."

+1
Click to expand...

+2. Just finished FO NV in December (only my second play through). I liked it more than the first time, but not enough to buy any of the DLCs. Characters are much better written than FO3 (especially followers), but the game world wasn't as interesting. Perfect game for me would be Bethesda designing the game world and Obsidian writing the script.
 
PhatoseAlpha said:
Perhaps density isn't the correct word. FO3 felt artificial. There was a fair amount of stuff in a tight area in New Vegas - but Vegas gave a good reason for that density. The people you ran into were there because of Vegas and Hoover Dam.

By comparison, FO3 had small pockets of people - many of whom lacked to have a way to grow food, or access fresh water, or really to have any reason to stay there. There are still ruins that aren't lived in, nor have they been cleared out. Open vaults filled with relics which no one has touched in 200 years.

The entire game world was designed around giving players things to do - with no thought at all to internal consistency or believability. Wandering around a post-apocalyptic theme park, versus a world. None of the previous titles had felt that way - places had a reason to exist outside of the player.




Had they gone all the way on that route, I might've been more into it. They didn't really do too much with that though. For all the talk of the importance of water, you'd have 1 beggar outside of every town who seemed to actually be inconvenienced by thirst. Nobody else seemed to mind that much. They just hung out in their little walled, farmless, waterless cities without a care in the world. Waiting for a player to show up to send on some errand or another.
Click to expand...

It's a video game.
 
motsm said:
They really need to make Fallout from the ground up finally. No more of this garbage that feels like a publisher threw a mod team a copy of a Oblivion and a few million dollars. I'm still betting on Skyrim with guns though.
Click to expand...

You dont know what you're talking about. Clearly you didnt play Fallout 3 and beyound enough to comment on the topic.
 
ibex333 said:
You dont know what you're talking about. Clearly you didnt play Fallout 3 and beyound enough to comment on the topic.
Click to expand...
I didn't spend weeks with the game, but I played plenty of it to know it's exactly as I'm describing. Perhaps you think I'm saying it's a bad quality mod? It's very well done for being an Oblivion mod, but it still plays like one, which is bad enough for reasons I already went into in my post after it. It seems like most people that liked Oblivion just have blinders on to just how similar the two games are, but whatever, don't believe me.
 
slpnshot said:
You mean Skyrim?
Click to expand...

No. Skyrim, WITH GUNS.

Seriously though there were two problems I had with Fallout 3; the first was the lack of dark humor from the first 2 games. New Vegas had a good helping of it, but it was also written by the same people as the first 2.
The second was the dull NPCs, with a couple of exceptions the NPC were about as much fun as cardboard. Again something else that was fixed in NV.
 
PhatoseAlpha said:
Well, in that case lets add flying purple dragons, power pills and summon spells.
Click to expand...

So you'd prefer having to spend hours upon hours upon hours walking through a barren wasteland just to get to a single destination? Great, have fun with that.
 
Kev said:
So you'd prefer having to spend hours upon hours upon hours walking through a barren wasteland just to get to a single destination? Great, have fun with that.
Click to expand...
There's a balance to be found of course, but making the wasteland itself a bit more interesting would always help. I always remember when modders started pushing Morrowind's draw distance far beyond it's default maximums, and it really made the world feel silly. You could often see multiple towns and climates by just scanning your immediate surroundings.
 
motsm said:
I didn't spend weeks with the game, but I played plenty of it to know it's exactly as I'm describing. Perhaps you think I'm saying it's a bad quality mod? It's very well done for being an Oblivion mod, but it still plays like one, which is bad enough for reasons I already went into in my post after it. It seems like most people that liked Oblivion just have blinders on to just how similar the two games are, but whatever, don't believe me.
Click to expand...

Fallout 3 and NV are my 2 favorite games of the current gen. I could not play oblivion at all, I really dislike that game and cannot get into it at all
 
Scooby Doo said:
I think I would pass if it was overhead. Nowhere's as near as immersive. I got as far in fallout 1 as that first town you run into and that was about it.
Click to expand...

I'm the oipposite. I don't find first person immersive at all. I barely played Fallout 3. Played 1 and 2 for years.
 
power_hour said:
Boston? Really?
Hopefully I can visit Cheers at least. Norm the cannibal.
Click to expand...

My guess is that they chose Boston so that they could probably continue some of the plot from the last game. My guess is that the Commonwealth will play a large role. Depending on how long before or after the events of Fallout 3 the game is set, there could be some other similarities.

Regardless, once they're done with 4, hopefully they let Obsidian make another Fallout game. Would be interesting to let them continue making games the follow the original and have Bethesda focus on the east coast.
 
Kev said:
So you'd prefer having to spend hours upon hours upon hours walking through a barren wasteland just to get to a single destination? Great, have fun with that.
Click to expand...

You know, there are ways to deal with having a spaced out wasteland without spending hours wandering. They managed it in both Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, over a decade ago, and I'm pretty sure they managed it in Wasteland over two decades ago. It's not actually all that hard.

That said, I'd want to have a world that was believable. New Vegas managed that, didn't have to walk for hours. Just a matter of putting some actual thought into the world design - which Bethesda did not do in Fallout 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top