Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Fallout 4

54 replies to this topic
Dragonjack
  • Dragonjack

    Moving on to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2012

#31

Posted 21 March 2012 - 11:08 AM

Fallout 3 was a Sick Game! it changed the Fallout series. but the Very old Fallout series was too boring icon13.gif

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#32

Posted 21 March 2012 - 07:47 PM

QUOTE (oysterbarron @ Wednesday, Mar 21 2012, 01:28)
Fallout 3 was a bitch for new players to get into the overcome feeling of freedom that the game gives you scared me of. It was only the third time i brought it that i finnaly got into it and it was my first installment in the fallout universe. I know i may get flamed but im really hoping we get borderlands style multiplayer with the next fallout. I wanna share the experience with friends the wasteland is a tad to lonly for my liking.

yeah but Fallout is a very specific kind of RPG.

it's supposed to be experience alone I think.
that's the point of the game universe and the lore; the civilized world as you know it no longer exists.

people only live in small groups because there's not enough food/resources to feed large communities.
the game gives you companions and that's the closest you get to "sharing" the experience with "others."

I know it's not the same as COOP multiplayer with other real people, but that would ruin the feel and the point of the Fallout series.
there's plenty of multiplayer games that already fulfill this need. and since you mentioned that you would like more Borderlands-specific action, you'll be happy to know they're already working on Borderlands 2.

so there's no need to incorporate anything like that into FO4.

Moth
  • Moth

    Sweet Roll Thief

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#33

Posted 21 March 2012 - 08:02 PM

QUOTE (The Killa @ Tuesday, Mar 20 2012, 23:48)
The story was completely uninteresting to me and didn't draw me in at all, I felt absolutely no connection to my, or any characters around me. I ran into a boatload of major technical issues, lost multiple saves, and I absolutely loathed the setting, it eventually got me so infuriated to even look at the box I eventually sold it. I know Fallout 3 had a large issues on it's own, but New Vegas was nearly unplayable for me. I guess it was bad luck?

Funny enough I had the same problems, except for losing saves. The game's story didn't interest me, and plus the setting didn't out that well. I like Fallout 3 because of the exploring, it was fun. In New Vegas on the other hand, exploring was a pain and not that rewarding. Plus the locations that were worth exploring were few and far between.

Though I do understand why someone like Pat would get pissed about Bethesda about not following lore. But Fallout 3 didn't really break any lore, it's not like Bethesda made Fallout 3 into a game like Fallout Tactics or Fallout BOS, which ignored a lot of the lore. You know like cars and tanks that run on gasoline or BAWLS being in the universe? The story in Fallout 3 was weak, I'll give you that but so was New Vegas's. The factions in New Vegas were pretty well done, but the story itself wasn't that good.

And finally I hope that Bethesda and Obsidian work together on Fallout 4, so we can get the best of both worlds.


@oysterbarron: I hope to god that Fallout 4 won't have multiplayer , it doesn't need!

oysterbarron
  • oysterbarron

    You need a Pearl necklace? Hit me up ;)

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • United-Kingdom

#34

Posted 21 March 2012 - 08:10 PM

That's the trouble though! i know alot of people that would seriously dig this game if it wasn't for the fact it doesn't have any multiplayer whatsoever! Not having a multiplayer in this day and age is seriously holding some games back and this is one of them, I know first hand how hard it is to get into the fallout series whereas if you had a friend to hold your hand it would make it such a more rich experience, especially as the way the quests are already set out pretty much like an MMO, Like you state they already allow you to bring followers with you so i don't really see why you couldn't bring a friend along as well or instead of CPU characters i think i would get 10 times moree entertainment out of bringing a HCP instead of a CPU along!

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#35

Posted 21 March 2012 - 08:12 PM

QUOTE (oysterbarron @ Wednesday, Mar 21 2012, 13:10)
Not having a multiplayer in this day and age is seriously holding some games

I would argue the opposite.
too much multiplayer (or too much focus on it in games that have both single and multiplay) is ruining a lot of games that would otherwise be a lot better.

Call of Duty.
Halo.
Gears of War.

etc....

Moth
  • Moth

    Sweet Roll Thief

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#36

Posted 21 March 2012 - 08:35 PM

QUOTE (oysterbarron @ Wednesday, Mar 21 2012, 15:10)
That's the trouble though! i know alot of people that would seriously dig this game if it wasn't for the fact it doesn't have any multiplayer whatsoever! Not having a multiplayer in this day and age is seriously holding some games back and this is one of them, I know first hand how hard it is to get into the fallout series whereas if you had a friend to hold your hand it would make it such a more rich experience, especially as the way the quests are already set out pretty much like an MMO, Like you state they already allow you to bring followers with you so i don't really see why you couldn't bring a friend along as well or instead of CPU characters i think i would get 10 times moree entertainment out of bringing a HCP instead of a CPU along!

Is the lack of multiplayer really holding back some games? I find it doesn't, the devs put more time into the singleplayer and make it better. Fallout 3 was my first fallout game as well, but I didn't have a problem of getting started. Also, so what if certain types of people don't want to play Fallout because it doesn't have multiplayer, the people who play it don't really want it. If someone doesn't want to try a game because it doesn't have multiplayer, why do the people who actually want to play have to suffer?

oysterbarron
  • oysterbarron

    You need a Pearl necklace? Hit me up ;)

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • United-Kingdom

#37

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:13 PM Edited by oysterbarron, 21 March 2012 - 09:27 PM.

You say that but take MC for example, if it had no multiplayer whatsoever would it still be as rewarding to create a mega build and have no one to share it with? i for one get really board with the single player experience whereas i can play MP for hours on end, These devs put so much time into crafting these immersive experiences for a single player, whats the point in finding this really rare weapon in a crate or an awesome underground bunker if your the only one there to enjoy it. I will rephrase it no its not lack of multiplayer that is holding back games its the lack of thought and the DEVs inability to do a successful multiplayer and single player game thats holding games back thats why games like borederlands that bring the 2 together successfully is good in-between ground, Adding the ability to have a friend jump in and out of the main single player game would not effect the people that want to play single player and those who wish to play multiplayer can enjoy that experience aswell.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#38

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:27 PM

to be fair, MineCraft is a COMPLETELY different kind of game than Fallout.

you can't really compare the 2 in this regard.
MC would be nothing without multiplayer, it'd just be virtual Lego.
your creations are meant to be shared.

but the Fallout experience - by nature of it's story and lore - is meant to be a singleplayer game only.

oysterbarron
  • oysterbarron

    You need a Pearl necklace? Hit me up ;)

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • United-Kingdom

#39

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:39 PM

I was using MC as a loose example! but recent itterations of fallout have borrowed so many features from MMO's like questing, crafting, rare items that poelpe see it as an MMO but without the online side of it and that intern is holding it back from opening up to new players. because they prefer to share an experience like that!

Toup
  • Toup

    Group: Cheesedicks

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2010

#40

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:39 PM

Oyster - Minecraft /=/ Fallout

I assure you I would pick a entirely single-player RPG game anytime over a multiplayer one. Playing online would just break the feeling of being in a wasteland in the future, where you've got to survive and just play your role, you have to get sucked off tounge.gif, multiplayer would take that away.

Don Garcia
  • Don Garcia

    Dolls Kill

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2009

#41

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:46 PM Edited by Don Garcia, 25 April 2013 - 07:20 PM.

404: Post not found

Moth
  • Moth

    Sweet Roll Thief

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#42

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:52 PM

QUOTE (oysterbarron @ Wednesday, Mar 21 2012, 16:13)
You say that but take MC for example, if it had no multiplayer whatsoever would it still be as rewarding to create a mega build and have no one to share it with? i for one get really board with the single player experience whereas i can play MP for hours on end, These devs put so much time into crafting these immersive experiences for a single player, whats the point in finding this really rare weapon in a crate or an awesome underground bunker if your the only one there to enjoy it. I will rephrase it no its not lack of multiplayer that is holding back games its the lack of thought and the DEVs inability to do a successful multiplayer and single player game thats holding games back thats why games like borederlands that bring the 2 together successfully is good in-between ground, Adding the ability to have a friend jump in and out of the main single player game would not effect the people that want to play single player and those who wish to play multiplayer.

But why can't there be games that are targeted at people who don't want multiplayer? Fallout is an RPG and RPGs have been traditionally single player. The moment you add multiplayer, the dynamic of the game changes. Borderlands is more of a Shooter with some RPG elments. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are RPGs that happened to have shooting in them. Yeah not a really good way to explain it, but that's the best I can come up with, right now.

Minecraft doesn't have an engaging story or characters or anything like that. The game is fun because of the multiplayer. RPGs are fun because they allow you to be the hero, the moment you add more people sharing the hero title, it becomes less meaningful.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#43

Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:30 PM

QUOTE (oysterbarron @ Wednesday, Mar 21 2012, 14:39)
recent itterations of fallout have borrowed so many features from MMO's like questing, crafting, rare items

again to be fair... Fallout 1 and 2 also used questing and rare items.

it wasn't only the "recent" Fallout's that started using those features.
they've always been a part of the franchise.

crafting was the only "new" or recently added feature.

oysterbarron
  • oysterbarron

    You need a Pearl necklace? Hit me up ;)

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • United-Kingdom

#44

Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:52 PM

Didnt realize that but like myself they also have never played the originals. So the newer itterations is what they judge the franchise on. They can see its a good game but dont fancy the concept of putting 50 -120 hours into a game on there own! But they will quiet happily do that on games like rift a wow. Its just so setup for mutiplayer leveling up skills abilities that it seems silly to me that they havent made the jump yet! Having another player with varing abilities and skills different from what you have would open up so many new doors and missions in game it would be a more rich experience for you.

The Killa
  • The Killa

    Diet Water Please

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2002

#45

Posted 22 March 2012 - 05:46 AM

I think the common precedent among game developers that multiplayer should be a fundamental part of the game itself nowadays is the wrong direction. Especially for games like TES or Fallout - they're huge gigantic games that are meant to be played for an obscene amount of hours by yourself. And for the most part they do a fantastic job immersing the player into the world. Can you imagine if they tacked on a shoddy multiplayer version, thus having the core singleplayer aspect at the risk of being lesser quality? It would be sh*t.

If anything, they should dedicate a single game to multiplayer, and a single game to singleplayer, not 2 in 1. And it appears to be that way, as they're apparently pursuing an "MMO" with TES series.

QUOTE
SOOO, Fallout 4, huh? I really do hope it's on the next-generation consoles. It kinda feels guaranteed at this point. The 360/PS3's been around for over six years, and new consoles are coming. If not 2013, definitely by 2014 we're gonna see a new one. It's time for the next leap. And that's just what Bethesda needs to shack 'em from the norm. They're very complacent on the 360/PS3. It's time for them to create a drastically new engine and overhaul the way they do animations and sh*t. For reals.


It surely has to be I'd imagine. The current-gen consoles have been on their last legs for a long time now. It's getting to the point developers are using "tricks" like reduced FoV and bloom just to ensure the game isn't a gigantic slideshow on the outdated hardware. But do they really have to "create a drastically new engine" when they've essentially done so with Skyrim? I would think it would at least be improved upon, not a new gigantic engine?

Don Garcia
  • Don Garcia

    Dolls Kill

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2009

#46

Posted 22 March 2012 - 07:46 AM Edited by Don Garcia, 25 April 2013 - 07:20 PM.

404: Post not found

The Killa
  • The Killa

    Diet Water Please

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2002

#47

Posted 22 March 2012 - 08:40 AM Edited by The Killa, 22 March 2012 - 08:53 AM.

QUOTE (Don Garcia @ Thursday, Mar 22 2012, 01:46)
QUOTE (The Killa @ Thursday, Mar 22 2012, 01:46)
But do they really have to "create a drastically new engine" when they've essentially done so with Skyrim? I would think it would at least be improved upon, not a new gigantic engine?

So you really think the Creation engine is a drastically different engine from Gamebryo? Really?

Im speaking more of a sense of using the current engine and using it as a fundamental base for improvement towards, possibly, the "next-gen" console. A long train of improvement, ie Valves Source engine. I don't really see a urgent need for a completely new engine, and rather taking advantages of current possible improvements, but we'll see what road they take.

Pat
  • Pat

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2006

#48

Posted 22 March 2012 - 02:10 PM

QUOTE (Don Garcia @ Wednesday, Mar 21 2012, 16:46)
It's time for them to create a drastically new engine and overhaul the way they do animations and sh*t. For reals.

You are hopelessly optimistic, Don, if you think they aren't going to milk the "Creation" engine (aka Gamebryo with a facelift) for as long as they can.

Supreme.
  • Supreme.

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2007

#49

Posted 23 March 2012 - 10:57 AM Edited by Supreme., 12 January 2013 - 08:25 AM.

Like so many, FO3 was my first taste, hadn't even heard of Fallout before 2008. Back then I got sucked into the DC wasteland and thought it was all 'awesome'. The previous year I'd switched to PC gaming and was catching up with all the classics I'd been completely oblivious of as an exclusive console player. Naturally FO3 piqued my curiosity about the earlier games in the series.

So I bought the white-label dvd and followed what Reconite posted here. As I fired up FO1 the opening cinematic was very impressive, since dated graphics don't bother me in the slightest. Still, I was skeptical of the gameplay, standing outside Vault 13 killing rats at the start of the journey to the outside world. But I'm glad I kept at it as it bloomed into one of the greatest gaming experiences I've ever had the pleasure of. Despite discovering it eleven years later, it easily rocketed to my top ATG list. Then went on to FO2, which has loads more content, but lacks consistency. I don't much mind the silliness and understand their development problems...a flawed gem and best with killap's Restoration Project.

My stock for FO3 subsequently plummeted. Honestly, after playing 1 & 2, my rating of FO3 dropped from 9/10 to 5-6/10. Bethesduh did a ridiculously poor, juvenile job of their story, factions, quests, etc. and how it all worked together when compared to the rich foundation they were clearly fumbling from. Thankfully Obsidian being led by a few people who worked on the old Fallouts really did shine through. New Vegas is thoroughly superior and really puts Beth's efforts to shame, especially when considering Obsidian had far less development time (just about one year compared to FO3's four) and were inexperienced with pooey Gamebryo.

So if Bethesda are making FO4, well, maybe I'll pick it up from the bargain bin...

biggrin.gif - http://i.imgur.com/fdhJb.jpg

tounge.gif - http://i.imgur.com/2unv9.jpg

cool.gif - http://i.imgur.com/mh3op.png

Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#50

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:53 AM Edited by Tycek, 26 March 2012 - 08:39 PM.

Finally I've seen some interesting and smart post in this topic. My story is different, because I started my FO adventures back in 1999, when friend brought me these games (both parts at the same time), but I agree completely about FO3. I completed it two times and I still want to complete it once more( mostly to get all the achievements), but every time I think about it and of lack of features from NV, I just can't start it. Currently I'm playing NV for forth time and I will probably complete it at least once more.

I hope Obsidian will make FO4, at least write story and quests for it, so we can have as great and interesting game as F:NV, which is for me one of the best games of this generation. If not, I will wait for some time, read all the reviews and think before getting it. I don't want another story with paper characters and boring quests.

Engine used in the game doesn't bother me much. They can use Creation Engine as long as they will give me game that I can play for months and maybe even years.

Dragonjack
  • Dragonjack

    Moving on to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2012

#51

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:28 PM Edited by Dragonjack, 08 April 2012 - 01:23 PM.

*EDIT* important message (if it is) i don't how this topic will last long!? confused.gif OT: Does anybody think that Fallout 4 will get announced at E3 this year? and it seems that Bestesda games studio & Bethesda Softworks are attending at E3 this year just to let you know. but i think its too early to announce fallout 4 this year, because we haven't heard about Fallout 4 so Far. Could be Next-Gen (likely) Could be Current-Gen "Maybe" anyway i just saw some the games that been developed by Bethesda Game studios (this one is ages ago)First its The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim & Unannounced game? by Bethesda Game studios And a few Unannounced titles. So far Nothing sad.gif

Dragonjack
  • Dragonjack

    Moving on to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2012

#52

Posted 07 April 2012 - 03:24 PM

Sry for double post. check out the "EDIT POST" i made thx

ccrogers15
  • ccrogers15

    REQUESTED BAN

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2010

#53

Posted 30 July 2012 - 09:54 AM

Id like to bump this. Fallout 4 dont need to be on future consoles. Many people will most likely stick to the current consoles. How far can consoles REALLY go next? there already very far. Whats next? Cords that go into your brain and suck your soul into the console to play?

And to the above who say it needs a new engine: I highly dought that will happen due to bethesda using a heavy modified engine for skyrim of gamebryo under a new name for future bethesda products. skyrim was the first game the heavy modified engine was used on, so fallout 4 is most likely the next.

Warlord.
  • Warlord.

    :O

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2004

#54

Posted 30 July 2012 - 09:59 AM

There's no way I'm buying it if its produced by Bethesda AND runs on Gamebryo. No chance. Nada. Zilch.

ccrogers15
  • ccrogers15

    REQUESTED BAN

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2010

#55

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:05 AM

QUOTE (Warlord. @ Monday, Jul 30 2012, 09:59)
There's no way I'm buying it if its produced by Bethesda AND runs on Gamebryo. No chance. Nada. Zilch.

Then i guess your not buying it. Cause most likely bethesdas making it, and using the engine. trust me, id love to see obsidian do it under a new engine, but its not likely. The old engine was ok but it froze and glitched WAY to much.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users