Fallout 4

[Manco]

I don't see that this is where Bethesda want to take Fallout from what little I've seen and heard. Removing character customisation might limit your aesthetic choices somewhat but really that sort of thing is fundamentally padding for an RPG game is it not? It's something RPG devs throw in because at this point they have to. What will we do if we can't customise our PC from tens of faces and bodies? How will I connect to my character if he doesn't have the same shitty slug trail on his chin as me? Etc.

No, it plays to the larger theme that’s common in all of these RPGs: freedom of choice. Which quests do you play, which NPCs do you talk to, how do you talk to them, what guns do you favor, what armor do you wear, what haircut do you have?

Linear narratives are dime a dozen, Bethesda RPGs are open worlds with an open approach.

[Varrok]

@Havoc, are you for serious?

Fallout 3's story isn't a close copy of F1 or F2 story. It's a cheap rip-off. You cannot say that the Eden scene from F3 comes anywhere close to F1 Master scene, which F3 mocks. (This is a video spoiler from F1). F3 basically copies the whole idea to fuck it up, so it comes out as bland and interesting as it ever can be.

The developers from Bethesda didn't really understand what made Fallout games great, instead just mindlessly copied everything. That's not a way of making good games. I mean, I almost crapped my pants finishing F1, it was so awesome, so climatic, and gooood.

Not to mention that beating Master rhetorically was actually quite hard, you had to do a little bit of research (find some data disc in some location, I believe) and carefully plan your dialogue choices. NOT FUCKING SAY "[Speech 100%] You know what, kill yourself."

Both Fallout1 and 2 feature longer dialogue choices than just "one-liners". I can't find any at this moment, but I've seen some that consist of three lines and more. Bethesda would never do that in F3.

[Holy Sock]

Aren'tyou misrepresenting that Eden scene, Varrok? I mean all three dialogue options result in a conversation and more branching dialogue options. I mean after watching that video and watching a President Eden video I can't say how terrible it is in comparison. They both feature long dialogue choices - they both have silly and straightforward one-liners, too, both encounters have heavy "master plan" exposition...

The story is unoriginal but the originals aren't these well written masterpieces, either. The quality of dialgoue seems pretty similar.

[STM]

I thought the first two were pretty good as far as dialogue goes, overall the world was richer, that's not a good thing for Bethesda considering the comparative resources they have, F3 should have been able to offer a much richer tale than what it did.

Interplay don't get off Scot free though, they handed over their baby for pennies and had no creative input into F3, there's always going to be a clash of minds in an instance like that.

[Havoc]

F3's story isn't getting the credit it's due if you ask me. The main story is hardly the only story element in the game. They gave the entire DC area a story, including minor locations and minor side quests. Even the main storyline is solid and gives choices on how to conclude the story and who to side with (or just do nothing at all).

Just from the top of my head, there's extensive background stories for at least 4 vaults, over two dozen locations, expanded stories for multiple established factions like the BoS and the Enclave. Not to mention the super tiny slithers of information about the Fallout universe that can be found in dozens of locations detailing history and such.

As far as I'm concerned the writers did a pretty good job, even if they did take some inspiration from the first two games for the main story. I really don't get where all this hate is coming from.

[Crashpunk]

I agree Havoc. I enjoyed both FO3 and NV's stories. They weren't horribly written nor badly voice acted in my opinion.

I actually really enjoyed the openings too. particularly NV where you have to pick up the pieces and figure out what the thing you were delivering was and why was it worth almost being killed for.

[Vyrien]

The graphics look kind of meh, especially since it's been 7ish years since 3, come on Bethesda I own a PC not an Xbox 360. That aside I'm glad colours actually exist now.

I'm not particularly hyped because not really a fan of Bethesda games in general (besides Morrowind) but I quite enjoyed 3 for its silly fun so I'll definitely play it.

[SIADmander]

I don't know if this has been pointed out, but does anyone think the amount of color in this one has something to do with the popularity of bioshock infinite's art style?

[Phylum]

I highly doubt it. One of the big criticisms of F3 was that everything got tinted dull brown due to some sepia lens effects.

The big thing for me will be the sky colour. If they get that right in this game (maybe tone down the blues a tiny bit?) it would bring everything to life a bit more than in F3.

[Manco]

New Vegas had an orange tint though, remember? They didn’t change it then either.

[Mr. Bungle]

New Vegas was all orangey-brown, 3 was greeny-grey, now this look is looking like a mixture of the two.

Halloween vomit chic. I can dig it.

[Havoc]

I've always turned off those filters with mods the first chance I got. Made the game look much better.

[AlexFili]

I've always turned off those filters with mods the first chance I got. Made the game look much better.

When I first played Fallout 3 with the filter on I did sort of sense that something wasn't right, colour-wise. When turning it off suddenly it was like taking off a pair of green sunglasses and I could enjoy the sky, the grass. In some films I can understand why it's done, but it doesn't really have any place in videogames and should be optional if anything.

Storywise, I think like a lot of big stories the start of the story is generally the best and most exciting part. The ending that the developers choose can be dramatic but sometimes can really irritate fans. (Fallout 3 Non-DLC Ending/Mass Effect 3) Fallout 3 held your hand a bit and taught you the mechanics of the game and also introduced you to the speech based choices which can have a strong impact on future scenes. The events that occur at the start of Fallout 3 do a good job of starting the Call to Adventure in which the hero is pretty much forces to start their quest.

I felt attachment to Fallout 3's story, particularly of the main character's dad who I felt portrayed the concerned father right. (Liam Neeson was a great casting choice) As with most open world games, I explored a lot of the map before I even considered going to the main campaign. The parts I enjoyed the least were the underground segments and the large confusing bases, along with finding pesky NPCs that would keep disappearing or hiding in a large area.

Fallout New Vegas took the series to another level, I wasn't as attached to the main story but exploration I think seemed more enjoyable and the enemy variety kept things interesting.

I would be very surprised if there wasn't any kind of customisation, in these types of games they usually have a 'default guy' (like Commander Shepherd) as they want to show 'a' player character but not necessarily your character. I'm interested in Fallout 4 but will most likely wait for some reviews before I take another trip to the wastelands.

[Havoc]

Holy fuck, that Fallout 4 presentation... amazing. Simply amazing. Getting so fucking hyped for this game, it's insane. Gonna be spending hours with just building settlements and managing them, let alone anything else.

Story does seem a tad predictable though. You're a pre-war survivor that (presumably) awakes from a 200 year stasis Vault in Boston. Which feels like a very cheap way of showing the pre-war world before starting the real game. Could have left that out as far as I'm concerned, though it does give a certain sense of loneliness I guess. We'll see how it unfolds.

Saw some amazingly cool things, can't wait for this game. November 10th is the release date. Hope it doesn't get delayed

Edit: Wrote a more extensive blog post on my website. http://www.tiger-gaming.net/fallout-...ype-train-518/

[Dynamithix]

The reveal trailer didn't do much for me, I liked the look of it but that was about it. The E3 presentation however was really great, got me quite hyped. I liked the new building system and the fact that you can pretty much set up your own town. NPC dialogues seem much more natural and dynamic now because the player character actually has a voice of his own. Graphics were nice, don't know why so many people are complaining about the visuals, it looks a lot more lively and colorful than Fallout 3 or New Vegas. The FPS rate during the presentation kind of bummed me out though, it was definitely struggling to hold a solid 30FPS, hope this is not the case with the final product.

Fallout: Shelter, that little mobile game they demo'd, looked really cool to be honest. It's something I could see myself playing every once in a while on my phone. Hope they bring it to Android, I think it's just for iOS at least for now.

But yeah, Fallout hype!

[AlexFili]

Story does seem a tad predictable though. You're a pre-war survivor that (presumably) awakes from a 200 year stasis Vault in Boston.

Person that wakes up in the future... That's Futurama! To be honest I think we can kind of expect that with the franchise. That's like being a military guy in Call of Duty / Battlefield or becoming an Assassin in Assassin's Creed.

I'm interested in what it will do with regards to competing with these Early Access survival games that have a big emphasis on crafting/survival (which possibly ties in with the whole base building/management idea. Hopefully they will innovate enough with the core game to make it worth a purchase. It's definitely something I do look forward to (depending how buggy the launch is).

On a side note, I wish that Fallout Shelter was on Android now. Having to wait is a bit of a shame.

[Phylum]

Person that wakes up in the future... That's Futurama! To be honest I think we can kind of expect that with the franchise. That's like being a military guy in Call of Duty / Battlefield or becoming an Assassin in Assassin's Creed.

Uh except that waking up in the future is something that none of the protagonists from the other games has done?

[Havoc]

To be honest I think we can kind of expect that with the franchise.

Well no, because there's never been a pre-war player character in any of the Fallout games so far. What I meant was that they seemed so very fixated on showing the pre-war world that the leap 200 years ahead is kind of weird and feels a little cheap. Of course, for all we know that little prologue set in the pre-war world could be a major plot element, but I kind of doubt it. It feels more gimmicky than anything else at this point.

[Phylum]

I guess it's convenient more than anything because it explains why you don't know shit without being a vault dweller. I feel like it's hard for them to justify adding to much more to vault lore at this point - it already feels a bit dense. Still nothing wrong with being born in the wasteland a la FO2.

[Manco]

They’ve run the gamut on innocent character backstories now anyway – between “grew up in Vault and leaves for first time” and “born pre-war and held in stasis” there’s not many other ways they could reasonably explain a player being so inexperienced without reaching.

[Havoc]

Not Fallout 4, but an amazing mod project currently in development for New Vegas.

[Alf Shall Rise]

I can't wait


Though for real I am looking forward to this. Didn't really care about it that much at first but it's starting to grow on me.

[Havoc]

We had a thread for such a subject once. But it got closed.

[Xavier]

I'd say you're trying to ignore the elephant in the room here Havoc, but I have a feeling this somehow would make this discussion even worse.

[AlexFili]

Speaking of elephants in the room, can anyone justify the £50 price tag? That's just ridiculous for a singleplayer game... not counting all the DLC that will no doubt come shortly after launch. Smash Bros wasn't £50. Shadow of Mordor wasn't £50. Mario Kart 8 wasn't £50. I don't think games should become more expensive to justify companies pouring buckets of cash into a game that won't make a profit without extra income. I'll reserve my judgement for the game of course, as it isn't out yet but I definitely won't buy it at launch. If it doesn't have major bugs on launch I will be very surprised.

[Varrok]

Because Bethesda wants your money in exchange of their shitty games, that's why

[Phylum]

Goddamn, 50 pounds? That's more than what games usually get over-inflated to over in Australia anyway. $130 game incoming mates.

[Havoc]

Not sure why, in Euro's it's just a cozy 60 Euro as is to be expected. Maybe some sort of tax thing? Not unheard of.

[Crashpunk]

£50? What?

You can Pre-Order Fallout 4 on Amazon for £42 (all platforms) and it's only £39.99 on Steam.

[Varrok]

only