Is there anyone left?

K

kieranbhoy

First time out of the vault
Is there anyone left in the world that likes Fallout 3 for the way that I do? For the way that brought me into the world of Fallout in October 2008?!

Basically, is there anyone who wants Fallout 4 to be nothing like new Vegas?

No life EVERYWHERE, whether it is plant life, or animals, it's too much!

No citys everywhere!

I liked Fallout 3 because it was a game where I could travel for hours in the wasteland and find a building and go "OMG could this be a building with life?!" then it turns out to be yet another rundown building. A game where you can see people struggling for survival, water, township. basic life!

Is there anyone who wants a game like this? Or do you all want a game called FALLOUT where everything is all fresh and clean?

It may have been 200 years but still, it takes longer than that for the radiation to clear, let alone rebuild.
 
Sure, setting-wise Fallout 3 had a little on New Vegas in emptiness and desolation and ruins, but if you're going to keep doing that you should really explain why there is no recovery and rebuilding. If anything, Fallout 3 struggled being a plausible setting where people's actions made sense, especially compared to New Vegas.

Nothing like New Vegas? I'd like it to learn from its quest/RPG system design and writing. Fallout 3 was rather behind there.
 
Bethesda fanboys are the ones who want a fresh and clean Fallout game, as evidenced by IGN's editorial. They would rather see the same thing over and over again. (Here's a hint on what they want: They want pretty scenery like in Skyrim, but with guns)

We'd like the world to be in the process of rebuilding, as the drama and story is not in searching for life after the end, but in how the journey of the survivors trying to cope with the end.

"War never changes" - this is the arc words for the series, a look into how the cycle of violence continues, and the perspective of humanity in an unforgiving and mostly lawless wasteland.

New Vegas is the closest of the fallout games to achieve an ideal for civilization, but it also shows just how close it is to slipping off the track and plunging right back into the abyss.

Some people just want a virtual hiking simulator in the post-apocalypse, which is what "roaming around" Fallout 3 was more or less. Many of the people who praise Fallout 3 are not interested in the story anyway.

Here's one opinion of a vocal Fallout 3 supporter on youtube:

also, the MAIN STORY LINE of ALL bethesthesda's free roam games ARE NOT the main purepose of the game, its the size, the exploration the side quests along your joinery the items you get the level, the perks , the people you talk with the locations, the setting of the game is what matters not the story line, i could care less about the story line in most bethesda's games i play them for the game itself not a main story line thats over in a couple of days.
Click to expand...

Not that I'm displaying the bad grammar and spelling on purpose, just showing the kind of mindset that many who do enjoy Fallout 3 sometimes display.

Many "Fallout 3 vs. New Vegas" articles go on about how Fallout 3 is better because it gives people more stuff, or some other gameplay-oriented features as opposed to details for immersion and roleplaying. The video from which this quote comes from, for instance, drones on about how merchants restock sooner in Fallout 3 than in New Vegas.

The problem is that the setting doesn't really support itself. As we've discussed elsewhere here on this very forum, the setting is very superficial and the rationale and reasoning for the setting's myriad of concepts and design decisions are somewhat paper-thin at best.

The Capital Wasteland is supposed to be a very difficult place to live, but there's traders who trade with places that have no visibile means of supporting itself or there's no end to the amount of supplies you can forage.

In fact, Fallout 3's economy is so good, that it's often more economical to stand in the middle of a firefight and spam stimpacks than to use tactics or thought.

As a consumer and as an intelligent human being, looking forward to the fiction of the Fallout franchise, this has continuously left me flat.

In a metaphor, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, not hang it by a single flimsy thread.

You show me Bethesda Fallout game that supports itself through a logical construction rather than a majority of throw it in "Because it's cool" concepts like a Michael Bay movie, and I'll enjoy that.
 
Yes, I love the free roaming a lot more than I love the uninteresting reasons my character would go through all of the pains to get something I don't care about done.


Nope, just Chuck Testa.

BUT, if we talk about something with a story behind, with a coherent setting, preferable where there are groups trying to arise, AND your beloved destructed world and lotsa exploring, I would be OK with that.
 
I kind of agree with the OP on the "desolate" feeling, I would prefer Fallout to come back to its very roots so the world feels much more chaotic and people struggle for survival more etc. But as BN pointed out, it makes no sense if this happens 200 years after the war. And as Bethesda is eager to never jump back in their franchises timelines, I doubt it would make any sense for future games to have such a desolate atmosphere.

To me that was one of the only good points in FO3 - along with the mostly nicely done art, the feeling was really cool. All the rest, Character system, Perks Quest/DIalog design etc. has been done a lot better in New Vegas.
 
Surf Solar said:
I kind of agree with the OP on the "desolate" feeling, I would prefer Fallout to come back to its very roots so the world feels much more chaotic and people struggle for survival more etc. But as BN pointed out, it makes no sense if this happens 200 years after the war. And as Bethesda is eager to never jump back in their franchises timelines, I doubt it would make any sense for future games to have such a desolate atmosphere.

To me that was one of the only good points in FO3 - along with the mostly nicely done art, the feeling was really cool. All the rest, Character system, Perks Quest/DIalog design etc. has been done a lot better in New Vegas.
Click to expand...
Yes, it could be a good thing. But there should be some kind of story supporting it. And no, I don't want it to be "nothing like New Vegas". I think New Vegas was a huge step forward after Fallout 3.
You can get to a desolated wasteland without being "nothing like New Vegas".
 
Surf Solar said:
I doubt it would make any sense for future games to have such a desolate atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Not entirely. You can place the game into a more of a remote place, like the very north of Washington and the border of Canada, where civilization has not yet spread and can readily struggle with the current leaders, like the NCR and the Legion (thus making a logical story bridge in the franchise).
 
Guys, I just mean I hope Fallout 4 will be nothing setting wise like NV. I still want the choices and the weapons ect.
 
There's space for different things. I wouldn't want every Fallout game to be as civilized as NV, which sometimes stretched it with its glitzy casinos, but I don't want every game to ape the original's atmosphere either. As long as the setting doesn't stretch my suspension of disbelief too much and doesn't stray away from its core elements, I'm okay with whatever comes next.
 
Hmmmm, I'd like to know how that side continues some time, but yeeah, it could be a good thing to play somewhere less civilized (there must be some place where fights between factions trying to arise slowed civilization down a lot).
I don't dislike it either. Just two different and interesting settings. But please, not like they did with Fallout 3, something which has explanation would be good.
 
Surf Solar said:
I kind of agree with the OP on the "desolate" feeling, I would prefer Fallout to come back to its very roots so the world feels much more chaotic and people struggle for survival more etc. But as BN pointed out, it makes no sense if this happens 200 years after the war. And as Bethesda is eager to never jump back in their franchises timelines, I doubt it would make any sense for future games to have such a desolate atmosphere.

To me that was one of the only good points in FO3 - along with the mostly nicely done art, the feeling was really cool. All the rest, Character system, Perks Quest/DIalog design etc. has been done a lot better in New Vegas.
Click to expand...

It is still very much possible for Fallout to feel desolate even by 2281. The NCR's population (700 000) is still a fraction of the population of present day Los Angeles, spread over a massive areas. Outside the most developed areas, life is still going to be pretty hard.

Sure, radiation might've dissipated mostly, but mutated plantlife, animals, chemical contmination and destruction are still present. Outside the NCR and high tech factions, baby mortality will be extremely high, diseases will be taking extreme tolls and in general, only the fittest will survive.
 
Even as a post apocalyptic hiking simulator fallout 3 isn't very good. Why? Because Bethesda is very lazy, there are very few building sets to build ruins so every freaking place looks the same in the wasteland "hey didn't I pass that same barn 10 miles back" "wow this office building looks completely the same as the last one." Had Bethesda taken some time to make a more palettes for interiors and exteriors it might not have been so bad, however they didn't. Further more so few building are enterable, there are a few ruined building that look really interesting to explore, the large apartment building that is used on steward square and Tacoma park, but nope no way in. Also they could have added more unique buildings that exist in real life Washington DC, the Supreme Court building, ford’s theater, the Old Executive Office Building, Arlington House and well you get the idea.
 
kieranbhoy said:
Guys, I just mean I hope Fallout 4 will be nothing setting wise like NV.
Click to expand...

I liked the post-post apocaliptic feel of NV but I wouldn't mind another game with a setting similar to FO3. I really don't mind as long as it's well done and believable. Which means that I'll be disappointed. :|
 
We're quibbling over a technicality, I think. With the limitations of the engine and the way they've chosen to handle overland travel, there's no way that any Fallout can feel (or be) sufficiently desolate in its current form. They've got to cram an entire game's worth of content into an area that could've easily gone hidden in one corner of the map in Fallout 1 or 2. As in the original Fallouts, there's the implicit player/developer agreement that distances, areas and populations in F3 and New Vegas are compressed representations of what they should be. There's no way that the sparse handful of people you meet in New Vegas are the entire population of the city, or that you can run across The Hub in three minutes flat. No player wants to actually check three square miles of ruined buildings or thousands of vault bunkrooms for items and personages of significance, and no designer wants to spend the time mapping and writing it, which is convenient, as no computer could run it.

It's all about suspension of disbelief and establishing a "feel," and honestly, I don't think that any Fallout since the first has nailed that balance (Two might've come close, but New Reno and a few other glaring logical faults sort of screwed it up). New Vegas certainly didn't, but if you think Three did, with all due respect, you're either kidding yourself or you're not working from the dictionary definition of "desolate."
 
Yamu said:
"No player wants to actually check three square miles of ruined buildings or thousands of vault bunkrooms for items and personages of significance, and no designer wants to spend the time mapping and writing it, which is convenient, as no computer could run it."
Click to expand...
Hey speak for yourself I would be interested in that, but your right it would be impractical to impossible to create a game world like that.
 
Fallout 03 was my introduction to the series and I adored the wasteland/ruins feel.

I generally preferred that atmosphere over the one in New Vegas although I do think New Vegas was the overall better game.
 
Yamu said:
With the limitations of the engine and the way they've chosen to handle overland travel"
Click to expand...

Is it even possible to implement fallout 1 & 2 travel style in gamebyro (or creation or what ever that abomination is called now)?
 
If you mean by spreading the map out even more, yes, it's most certainly possible.

Certain mods disable the invisible walls at the ends of the map, and it's been shown that there's many many miles of terrain beyond what we've seen in game.

The problem is trying to populate larger areas. Large expanses of empty ground would have helped, but casual players would have complained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top