Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Fallout 4 Discussion

652 replies to this topic
a20characterusername
  • a20characterusername

    \_(ツ)_/

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2013
  • None

#571

Posted 23 December 2013 - 01:21 AM Edited by gtarelatedusername2, 23 December 2013 - 01:30 AM.

Responses in green.


It always seems to baffle me that anyone could in any way knock Fallout 3, or even consider that New Vegas was better when it so clearly wasn't. In some aspects, sure, as it added upon the groundwork created by Fallout 3. But as an overall game, f*ck no.

 

Maybe because people have opinions that differ from yours? Crazy, I know. I think New Vegas had better writing, and the choices you made actually mattered, rather than "join the BOS no matter what you do". Fallout has always been about freedom of choice and how those choices affect others. People who played the older games tend to like NV better, because it feels more like an actual sequel, where Fallout 3 feels more like a spin-off.

 

Sure, blah blah, it's an RPG what the f*ck ever. But I felt skyrim had it bang on. It is much better to be able to train a skill just by doing it and not being restricted to a specific number value. The same goes for repair, which was a little more improved in new vegas. It was a constant annoyance but in the end I think I would prefer to keep the degrading weapons over skyrim's style of weapons and smithing. But you should be able to repair anything at any point, and attempt a hack or lockpick regardless of your level. Levels should just decide what perks you gain access to.

 

As far as training a skill by doing it ala Skyrim, look how that turned out. It's stupidly easy to exploit skills to 100 just by crafting daggers or casting the same spell over and over on a follower. I get what you're saying, but Skyrim's way of leveling was way too easily exploited.

 

But overall I think skyrim was pretty much what I want from fallout, in terms of the overall world and not setting any classes or traits before you have played the game yet. Buffing tag skills is good to start off with but I don't think we should be picking traits or classes. If they include traits again they should work as a removable and addable option, similar to the stones in skyrim.

 

There were never classes in Fallout except if you count the pre-made characters you *could* use in the first two games, and traits are optional (they don't even exist in Fallout 3). I don't know about you, but I don't want to play a character who's basically a master at every skill; it takes the challenge out of the game for me.

 

But generally the way I want it to be like skyrim is to have hundreds of locations of enemies. The main issue I always had with new vegas, though it had many gameplay improvements, it had too many factions and diplomacy options. Because let's face it, why piss off a group for no reason, you would want any benefits and unique items from them above anything else. So in the end of my 500+ hour game save the only hostile humans in the vanilla game world were fiends (who get boring fast) and viper gangs (which are in seriously short supply). The map was drastically smaller, and there were not even decent underground areas like Fallout 3 had, no metro tunnels no enemy strongholds or anything. The factions ruined that.

 

Diplomacy options exist because some people like doing a speech-oriented character; not everyone likes killing everything in sight.

 

Actually, the map in New Vegas was about the same size as Fallout 3, but I agree that there should have been more locations that weren't tied to a faction or the main story. One point I'll give to Fallout 3 is that it had a lot of places to explore just for the sake of exploring them, which I liked.

 

All enemy types were also drastically fenced in, you would NEVER see a randomly roaming enemy, I managed to get through the entire game only seeing two centaurs, one at close range one at long range, and though I avoid those things like the f*cking plague because they freak me out, in this instance it was a good thing, but the downside to that is that I rarely ever saw super mutants, never fought them other than a few occasions ever and the world ends up being a stagnated bore zone.

 

That's because scaling enemies didn't work in Fallout 3. Remember how once you'd get to level 20+, you'd start seeing Deathclaws pop up everywhere? Yeah, got a little annoying. I do wish that New Vegas added some more random enemy encounters though.

 

The shooting mechanics were greatly improved in new vegas, though I felt a lot of the damage had been removed, and with the inclusion of DT, it was worthless attacking any enemy that had armour with anything other than a weapon doing over 40 damage. So with that, all fully automatic weapons were made redundant. I want the feel of the chinese assault rifle back. Also the new running and shooting animations in new vegas were terrible. I am probably the only person I know that prefers playing in third person the majority of the time.


As far as DT, that's how it worked in all the other Fallout games besides 3. Also, did you ever bother using different ammo types? Because they can make a huge difference. I don't want weapons or armor to be simplified again like they were in Fallout 3.

 

Also, This Machine>Chinese Assault Rifle, jussupersaiyan'

 

So really, improvements for Fallout 4, would be to make sure the map was as large and included enough enemies and constant hostilities to keep you busy, but also to have random events just like skyrim had. I can't think of ANYTHING non scripted happening in fallout new vegas aside from a random wastelander roaming around south east of novac. Where as in Fallout 3 and even more so in skyrim, there were random spawns everywhere, and I loved that, and it kept the game fresh.

 

I agree 100% about random events; that's one place where New Vegas disappointed me. Wild Wasteland just didn't cut it.

 

I essentially want Fallout 3 but with the updates and additions from new vegas, but on a skyrim engine and using it's leveling system. But using the normal pip boy menu system and not skyrim's awfully jumbled up lists of bollocks.

 

If anyone can make sense of that.

 

Yeah, Skyrim's UI was terrible I agree, but I'd rather see a new engine in Fallout 4 rather than re-using Skyrim's. And a new character creation system would be nice, too.


lazy.
  • lazy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#572

Posted 23 December 2013 - 04:27 PM Edited by Lazyboy., 23 December 2013 - 04:28 PM.

I was gonna suggest Fallout should have vehicles a while back but I imagined everyone would tell me it's against the lore.
 
But I just found out Fallout 2 had a functioning car in it called the Highwayman, and F3 did have Vertibirds, and F:NV had a functioning B-29 Bomber....
 
 
...so how about vehicles? :D
  • 018361 likes this

a20characterusername
  • a20characterusername

    \_(ツ)_/

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2013
  • None

#573

Posted 23 December 2013 - 04:42 PM Edited by gtarelatedusername2, 23 December 2013 - 04:46 PM.

I was gonna suggest Fallout should have vehicles a while back but I imagined everyone would tell me it's against the lore.
 
But I just found out Fallout 2 had a functioning car in it called the Highwayman, and F3 did have Vertibirds, and F:NV had a functioning B-29 Bomber....
 
 
...so how about vehicles? :D

Like you say, Fallout 2 had a drivable car, although the map style of the old games is a lot different than the 3D ones. Personally I'd be for it if the map was large enough for vehicles to make sense and/or if fast travel was cut. Maybe even make it so you can fix up an old one yourself with the right scavenged parts and a high repair skill, and have it run on MFC cells or flamer fuel.

 

Of course, enemy factions could also use their vehicles against you...imagine a random encounter with the Mad Max vehicle. ;D


lazy.
  • lazy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#574

Posted 23 December 2013 - 05:12 PM Edited by Lazyboy., 23 December 2013 - 05:13 PM.

Although if we had vehicles the game would have to be a little more demanding. In F:NV, The Strip is split up by gates as it is, and was seen without gates in an E3 2010 demo so the gates were obviously technical limitations rather than design choice. Having to stop and go through a loading screen every corner would be pointless.
 
Hopefully with next-gen, Fallout gets a complete overhaul. New engine, no more separated maps, and vehicles. 
 
Of course, if they wanted planes, a good idea for the edge of the map would be not to have invisible barriers, but to have a huge empty desert or something around it, and going too far out would give you a sh*tload of rads and kill you.

Lee Everett
  • Lee Everett

    We need to keep you safe Clementine...

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2009
  • None

#575

Posted 23 December 2013 - 05:32 PM

The rumors are false, visit http://fallout3.com/

 

It's not owned by Bethesda Studios. They are working on a new Fallout game, but Fallout4.com won't be owned by them, it'll probably be on http://fallout.bethsoft.com/


a20characterusername
  • a20characterusername

    \_(ツ)_/

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2013
  • None

#576

Posted 24 December 2013 - 03:40 AM Edited by gtarelatedusername2, 24 December 2013 - 03:45 AM.

The rumors are false, visit http://fallout3.com/

 

It's not owned by Bethesda Studios. They are working on a new Fallout game, but Fallout4.com won't be owned by them, it'll probably be on http://fallout.bethsoft.com/

 

The Fallout community has been aware of that (fake sites, TS2299, etc.) for weeks, jussayin'. Still, we all know Fallout 4 is coming; Bethesda didn't fight that expensive legal battle for nothing and a few of the voice actors hinted at it a while ago.

Although if we had vehicles the game would have to be a little more demanding. In F:NV, The Strip is split up by gates as it is, and was seen without gates in an E3 2010 demo so the gates were obviously technical limitations rather than design choice. Having to stop and go through a loading screen every corner would be pointless.
 
Hopefully with next-gen, Fallout gets a complete overhaul. New engine, no more separated maps, and vehicles. 
 
Of course, if they wanted planes, a good idea for the edge of the map would be not to have invisible barriers, but to have a huge empty desert or something around it, and going too far out would give you a sh*tload of rads and kill you.

The Strip/Freeside being cut up was a bit disappointing, but if you play on PC there are mods that join them together as originally intended by Obsidian. But yeah, console limitations are also why the Hoover Dam battle was so...well, crappy.

 

Speaking of overhauls, I hope Bethesda doesn't go crazy with making NPCs 'essential' again. They sort of overdid it in Fallout 3 and Skyrim.

 

In New Vegas you could go off the map, and there was desert/mountains/enemies for a while until it just turned into a flat, lifeless void. As far as planes or Vertibirds, I guess it'd depend on where the next game takes place. It'd make sense for the Enclave/BOS to have Vertibirds (though to be honest I think those factions are overused, though seeing the Enclave Remnants was kind of fun), but I don't want to see raiders having them or something silly like that. ;D


Lee Everett
  • Lee Everett

    We need to keep you safe Clementine...

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2009
  • None

#577

Posted 24 December 2013 - 03:41 AM

 

The rumors are false, visit http://fallout3.com/

 

It's not owned by Bethesda Studios. They are working on a new Fallout game, but Fallout4.com won't be owned by them, it'll probably be on http://fallout.bethsoft.com/

 

The Fallout community has been aware of that for weeks, jussayin'.

 

Yes but this is a debate topic and I'm pretty sure that the OP (who is banned btw) was bringing up a topic that had nothing to do with the official Fallout 4.


a20characterusername
  • a20characterusername

    \_(ツ)_/

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2013
  • None

#578

Posted 24 December 2013 - 03:47 AM

So basically, you're mini-modding. Have fun with that.


Lee Everett
  • Lee Everett

    We need to keep you safe Clementine...

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2009
  • None

#579

Posted 24 December 2013 - 05:11 AM

So basically, you're mini-modding. Have fun with that.

 

No basically I'm giving my opinion. You have a problem with that? Too bad.


lazy.
  • lazy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#580

Posted 24 December 2013 - 09:54 AM Edited by Lazyboy., 24 December 2013 - 09:54 AM.

Also, a better engine would definitely allow for the developers to add some better minigames.
 
 
Imagine an extremely evil character killing an entire vault just so he can play on one of the simulations they have. The Boomers had that flight simulator, so it would make sense. Maybe in one of the vaults, the experiment was allowing people to exit the vault at any point, but the entire vault was filled with exaggerated warnings about the wasteland, and there would be simulations of this "wasteland" which just has endless waves of enemies that attack you, and you see how long you can survive. It'd start off with little insects, then small creatures, then ghouls, then large creatures, then super mutants and nightkin, then deathclaws etc. 
 
I'm all for small encounters with a couple of a certain enemy type (as it has always been) but I always wondered how long you could last with endless waves.

Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#581

Posted 24 December 2013 - 07:13 PM

Simulation like you mentioned would be rather impossible in terms of timeline as most of these creatures were results of mutation and or government experiments and appeared after the war. Last Vault was constructed in June 2074. 

 

It could appear in Bos or Enclave, but I hope nor of these groups will appear in the next game. 

 

If we're talking about endless fights with random creatures, something similar is present in NV. The Thorn offers you a possibility to fight on the arena, although creatures are completely random and not getting more powerful with every fight. Maybe some random arena would be sufficient for that type of fun?


lazy.
  • lazy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#582

Posted 24 December 2013 - 08:05 PM Edited by Lazyboy., 24 December 2013 - 08:06 PM.

I see what you mean, but the ones in the real wasteland would not have to be used. It would be a vision of the post-war apocalypse before it happened, and would be heavily exaggerated.

For example, they may have imagined that a rat would have turned into something similar to a deathclaw or something like that. It wouldn't be an accurate version of Fallout post apocaptia, but something overexaggerated.

It'd allow the devs to add in some crazy things that would otherwise ruin the normal gameplay.

RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Helpfulness Award
    April Fools Winner 2015

#583

Posted 24 December 2013 - 08:33 PM

Unless that'd be a fairly large part of the gameplay, creating a load of assets for unique creatures in a fairly unused part of the game may not be in the best interests of the developer - not to say they shouldn't, but I couldn't see them have a load of pre-war and idealised creatures if they weren't used elsewhere. 

 

I'd still love it as an idea, though, would allow playing differently to how you normally do.

 

Anyhoo, is it more likely they'll release another fallout before another elder scrolls (not counting ES:O) - also, would it be on a 'new' engine as opposed to an upgraded one (like FO:NV was to FO3)?


NightSpectre
  • NightSpectre

    Tomb Raider

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2013
  • United-States

#584

Posted 24 December 2013 - 08:41 PM

 

I was gonna suggest Fallout should have vehicles a while back but I imagined everyone would tell me it's against the lore.
 
But I just found out Fallout 2 had a functioning car in it called the Highwayman, and F3 did have Vertibirds, and F:NV had a functioning B-29 Bomber....
 
 
...so how about vehicles? :D

Like you say, Fallout 2 had a drivable car, although the map style of the old games is a lot different than the 3D ones. Personally I'd be for it if the map was large enough for vehicles to make sense and/or if fast travel was cut. Maybe even make it so you can fix up an old one yourself with the right scavenged parts and a high repair skill, and have it run on MFC cells or flamer fuel.

 

Of course, enemy factions could also use their vehicles against you...imagine a random encounter with the Mad Max vehicle. ;D

 

No, I do NOT want fast travel cut. Sometimes I don't have all day to walk around the map to do a quest. But I would like vehicles because it would add an extra bit of depth to the game, and gives a good medium between walking and fast traveling so you can have that adventure. 


lazy.
  • lazy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#585

Posted 24 December 2013 - 09:04 PM Edited by Lazyboy., 24 December 2013 - 09:05 PM.

Keep fast travel of course. When I want to quickly get a quest out of the way, I'd rather just fast travel to where I need to be instead of driving/walking.

They really need to improve the way they do the open worlds though. The invisible walls REALLY annoy me. I was trying to get to some map marker, went around this WHOLE "structure" with just invisible walls where any other reasonable person would just climb up.

After going all the way around I finally discover it's a huge quarry full of deathclaws with only ONE way in. That's just pathetic IMO, I should have been able to just climb up and get where I needed to go instead of having to go all the way around. Stuff like that is just boring and it should definitely be gotten rid of.

Finite
  • Finite

    Solitude

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • None
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#586

Posted 24 December 2013 - 11:31 PM Edited by Secura, 24 December 2013 - 11:47 PM.

Uh no.

 

Perhaps they should think about removing the invisible walls but I preferred FNV's more structured approach to world design in some ways. I loved the fact that getting to New Vegas wasn't easy, I adored the fact that you'd either have to go mano-a-mano with deathclaws, try to sneak past them (almost always unsuccessfully) or try your luck with giant flying tarantulas or Caeser's Legion. 

 

I liked it because it showed me that life in the wasteland wasn't easy, there were many complications, even for places that are relatively well-off such as Nevada. I liked that trekking through different faction locations was difficult and that the locations themselves were varied, interesting and offered a lot of extra gameplay if you were willing to put the time into developing a relationship with said faction and explore what they have to offer you. Fallout isn't about getting from point A to point B, it's about the journey from point A to point B.

 

Instead of invisible walls, would you have preferred a less immersion breaking method of preventing you from crossing into a certain area of the map (which I imagine will dwarf what we've seen on the Seventh Generation of consoles)? Such as a radiated minefield, a series of massive, impassible canyons that you couldn't cross without the right equipment (ropes, robotic grappling hooks, robotic climbing and jumping augmentations or vehicular transport of some sort) or an unassailable mountain range that you'd either freeze to death crossing or tumble off a ledge a few thousand feet up and fall (presumably) to your death if you managed to survive the freezing temperatures.

 

I understand that you may not like invisible walls, but obstructions can be far more interesting and varied than that, from war zones, to inhospitable terrain there's always a good, justifiable reason why you might not be able to get to were you want to be as fast as you'd like. That to me at the very least, is Fallout.


lazy.
  • lazy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#587

Posted 25 December 2013 - 12:08 AM

Getting to New Vegas wasn't easy? I just waltzed right in through Freeside. Was my game glitched or something? I never had to speak to the Legion or encounter any deathclaws to get into the Strip. I've only done one save as I only got the game last week, and I've messed up my current save as it is so I'll probably start again.

  • a20characterusername likes this

Firefly8000
  • Firefly8000

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2009

#588

Posted 25 December 2013 - 12:26 AM

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the city itself, not just the Strip. You'd have to travel past Deathclaw quarry or up through to Red Rock Canyon if you wanted to get there immediately. The game itself directs you around the map through Primm, Nipton and Novac in order to get to New Vegas, which I liked.


018361
  • 018361

    Human

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2010
  • None

#589

Posted 25 December 2013 - 12:34 AM

I was just using the Google voice search function and it gave me an idea that would definitely hold a huge impact for the entire gaming industry. Wouldn't it be cool if in a game like fallout we could have the same dialogue options as default, but also if the AI were made intelligent enough to hold coherent conversations like a real person. So, instead of choosing a pre-determined option you could try your luck by actually trying to convince the AI rather than relying on a video-game skill such as Fallouts charisma. If the AI were realistic enough the use of such a technology could help to teach people like me who have trouble in social situations to learn socializing basics, help people practice talking someone out of a hostage or suicide situation, and help people who are lonely feel as if someone were there to keep them company. This tech could also be used in robots and androids such as Honda's ASIMO to help people with disabilities, help a person who is short on time to clean their house, keep people company, and dare I say keep people erm..... "satisfied". I think the use of such tech would be wonderful in a game such as Fallout. Imagine talking a Raider out of killing you or make people your companion by befriending them. This feature would breed loyalty for both the player and NPC Companion. It could also fully replace the charisma and barter skills and would allow for a variety of ways to complete each task based on the users imagination rather than a pre-determined ending. The outcome of the story or quests could vary depending on your very own imagination! I doubt this type of tech would be available in time for FO4, but the potential is almost endless. 


Eris
  • Eris

    hey bae

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • None

#590

Posted 25 December 2013 - 12:52 AM

"Yo Caesar, you is a fa**ot"


a20characterusername
  • a20characterusername

    \_(ツ)_/

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2013
  • None

#591

Posted 25 December 2013 - 02:22 AM Edited by gtarelatedusername2, 25 December 2013 - 02:25 AM.

 

No, I do NOT want fast travel cut. Sometimes I don't have all day to walk around the map to do a quest. But I would like vehicles because it would add an extra bit of depth to the game, and gives a good medium between walking and fast traveling so you can have that adventure. 

 

Like I say, and/or; meaning I wouldn't mind if it were cut or not. I'm just considering game balance.

 

Although, FT'ing in Fallout 3 usually wasn't a good idea anyway, since you'd usually be greeted by Talon Company/Regulators/Super Mutants. Personally I only use it when going back to my safehouse to drop off loot if I happen to be far away.

 

@lazyboy: Yeah, the invisible walls are a pain, especially in New Vegas, where there were walls in places that didn't even make sense. Then again, the metro system in FO3 kinda drove me nuts, lol.


lazy.
  • lazy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#592

Posted 25 December 2013 - 03:43 PM Edited by Lazyboy., 25 December 2013 - 03:45 PM.

Just imagine Fallout with co-op though..

I mean, why hasn't this been done before! :O

Playthroughs would be fun with a friend, especially with the reputation system and such. Splitting up quests to get sh*t done quicker, finding somewhere to stay, sharing stuff you've found, planning out assasinations and so on.

Don't know how they'd work around the "save and reload" gameplay of Fallout though lol.

a20characterusername
  • a20characterusername

    \_(ツ)_/

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2013
  • None

#593

Posted 26 December 2013 - 02:13 AM

Just imagine Fallout with co-op though..

I mean, why hasn't this been done before! :O

Playthroughs would be fun with a friend, especially with the reputation system and such. Splitting up quests to get sh*t done quicker, finding somewhere to stay, sharing stuff you've found, planning out assasinations and so on.

Don't know how they'd work around the "save and reload" gameplay of Fallout though lol.

While not exactly a co-op, there was a Fallout MMO in the works a few years ago, but it never went forward due to the legal battle between Bethesda and Interplay.

 

Honestly though? Even though a few co-op missions sounds like fun, I'm not sure how/if it'd work, partially for the reason you mentioned. That and it really does feel fitting as a single-player game in my view, and a lot of games tend to shoehorn in half-assed multiplayer modes just for the sake of having them. The only workaround I can think of is having a second player take control of a follower during certain, optional quests/challenges, kind of like how GTA: San Andreas did it.


Stormingz
  • Stormingz

    Menace to society.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2013

#594

Posted 26 December 2013 - 02:51 AM Edited by Stormingz, 26 December 2013 - 02:51 AM.

Just imagine Fallout with co-op though..
I mean, why hasn't this been done before! :O
Playthroughs would be fun with a friend, especially with the reputation system and such. Splitting up quests to get sh*t done quicker, finding somewhere to stay, sharing stuff you've found, planning out assasinations and so on.
Don't know how they'd work around the "save and reload" gameplay of Fallout though lol.

While not exactly a co-op, there was a Fallout MMO in the works a few years ago, but it never went forward due to the legal battle between Bethesda and Interplay.
 
Honestly though? Even though a few co-op missions sounds like fun, I'm not sure how/if it'd work, partially for the reason you mentioned. That and it really does feel fitting as a single-player game in my view, and a lot of games tend to shoehorn in half-assed multiplayer modes just for the sake of having them. The only workaround I can think of is having a second player take control of a follower during certain, optional quests/challenges, kind of like how GTA: San Andreas did it.
They could do it similar to fable. Player A invited player B into their game or "world", because it's player A's world, Player B would be limited to the quests player A has already begun, or something similar.

Obviously Bethesda would have to work around that, and I'm not sure how saving would work, but it's a thought.

lazy.
  • lazy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#595

Posted 26 December 2013 - 09:52 AM Edited by Lazyboy., 26 December 2013 - 09:57 AM.

I think I've got a good idea of how co-op would work.
 
- Player A starts the game, either with a new save or with a save they've already started. During gameplay, Player B drops in, however their only option is to choose a save they've already started.
 
- All of the available quests and the state of the world will be relative to Player A. However, reputations would be different. If Player A has a good reputation with Faction A, and Player B has poor reputation with Faction A, Faction A would fire at Player B, and if Player B is seen with Player A, Faction A would attack both. However if Player A has an exceptionally good relationship with Faction A, they can convince Faction A that Player B is "good".
 
The above sounds complicated but if you put it into play, it's very simple.
 
- Yes, Player B, early in the game, can join Player A, far in the game, and both do a high-level quest together. But why would you want to do that? 
 
- A "co-op save" option. What would happen, is Player A wishes to start a playthrough with Player B. if they were to do a normal save, then an quests done in Player A's world would not carry over to Player B's world (but anything they picked up and dropped would) With a co-op save, the save can only be played with both of the people, it would be separately marked as co-op, and both players would have access to it.
 
- There would be a chat box in the corner for communication. That way, if Player A has a conversation with NPC, and Player B watches, Player B would see and hear what that NPC is saying, but when Player A's character says something, it would appear in the chat log. This also mixes well with anything that Player A actually types into the chat log. 
 
- For quick communication, "commands" can be picked and mixed with the Pip-Boy hotkeys. So for the hotkeys, the bottom right slot fror example could be assigned to a weapon, or to a command such as "I need a Stimpak". Looking at a player and pressing triangle would bring up your inventory and allow you to pass things to people at a distance. Or they could be dropped as normal.
 
- For save-and-reload, it would simply be Player A's choice. Both players can save when they wish, but if Player A loads a save, both players would be taken out and put into Player A's loaded save. If Player B load a save, he'd simply leave the game.
 
How's that? I think I've taken most problems into account.
  • a20characterusername likes this

a20characterusername
  • a20characterusername

    \_(ツ)_/

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2013
  • None

#596

Posted 29 December 2013 - 09:05 AM Edited by gtarelatedusername2, 29 December 2013 - 09:14 AM.

@lazyboy: Sounds doable in theory, but it all comes down to the engine that'll be used to run the game. If they stick with Gamebryo or any of the modded versions of it (like Skyrim's 'new' engine), I don't think it'll handle two players in the way you're describing, though it'd be nice.

 

As far as chat logs go, that could work with NPCs, but I think we've reached a point where players texting each other feels antiquated, and it would slow down gameplay. I'd just assume use headsets, (maybe have them built into certain helmets, like Power Armor?) and maybe have texting as a backup option.

 

As far as passing items to each other goes, I was thinking more along the lies of a modified companion wheel from F:NV, rather than hotkeys, with console players in mind. Or, like you say, just drop an item and have the other player pick it up, though that would end up getting annoying in some situations. I think your idea could work though.

 

Honestly though? I'd probably stick to single player in any case, because I feel that Fallout is best played alone. I'd rather not have Bethesda take the route that so many developers have before, and cram multiplayer modes into games where it doesn't really fit. I suggested the GTA:SA style of 2-player because I think that'd be a nice compromise, in that the multiplayer mode is there, but completely optional and ultimately inconsequential to the main game. Imagine doing the main quests, only to find out that you *need* a second player to finish it.

 

If anything, I'd rather the focus be put on getting rid of the bugs and resource issues that're all too common in Bethesda games (and sandbox games in general) before moving on to throwing more elements into the mix.

  • 018361 likes this

lazy.
  • lazy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#597

Posted 29 December 2013 - 11:27 AM

@lazyboy: Sounds doable in theory, but it all comes down to the engine that'll be used to run the game. If they stick with Gamebryo or any of the modded versions of it (like Skyrim's 'new' engine), I don't think it'll handle two players in the way you're describing, though it'd be nice.
 
As far as chat logs go, that could work with NPCs, but I think we've reached a point where players texting each other feels antiquated, and it would slow down gameplay. I'd just assume use headsets, (maybe have them built into certain helmets, like Power Armor?) and maybe have texting as a backup option.
 
As far as passing items to each other goes, I was thinking more along the lies of a modified companion wheel from F:NV, rather than hotkeys, with console players in mind. Or, like you say, just drop an item and have the other player pick it up, though that would end up getting annoying in some situations. I think your idea could work though.
 
Honestly though? I'd probably stick to single player in any case, because I feel that Fallout is best played alone. I'd rather not have Bethesda take the route that so many developers have before, and cram multiplayer modes into games where it doesn't really fit. I suggested the GTA:SA style of 2-player because I think that'd be a nice compromise, in that the multiplayer mode is there, but completely optional and ultimately inconsequential to the main game. Imagine doing the main quests, only to find out that you *need* a second player to finish it.
 
If anything, I'd rather the focus be put on getting rid of the bugs and resource issues that're all too common in Bethesda games (and sandbox games in general) before moving on to throwing more elements into the mix.

You'd never "need" a second player. A co-op player would replace one of your companion slots. Also, in co-op playthroughs it's stilll balanced as there is only so much loot, and that loot is split between two people in co-op. Although you'll have extra help, your extra help won't be as well equipped.


You could of course get someone who's completed the game and has all the equipment in the world to beat the game for you, but why would you want to do that? If others want that, let them, I'm not bothered what they do.

NightSpectre
  • NightSpectre

    Tomb Raider

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2013
  • United-States

#598

Posted 30 December 2013 - 03:02 PM

If vehicles were added, would anyone else like to see the Vertibird handled like power armor? As in, you have to get special "Vertibird training" before you can fly it?

 

I think that would be neat.

  • lazy. and a20characterusername like this

a20characterusername
  • a20characterusername

    \_(ツ)_/

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2013
  • None

#599

Posted 30 December 2013 - 06:00 PM Edited by gtarelatedusername2, 30 December 2013 - 06:02 PM.

 

You'd never "need" a second player. A co-op player would replace one of your companion slots. Also, in co-op playthroughs it's stilll balanced as there is only so much loot, and that loot is split between two people in co-op. Although you'll have extra help, your extra help won't be as well equipped.


You could of course get someone who's completed the game and has all the equipment in the world to beat the game for you, but why would you want to do that? If others want that, let them, I'm not bothered what they do.

 

I get what you're saying now. I took it as you saying that 2-player would be mandatroy for certain parts of the game. You know how some games like to force that on players...

 

As for loot, that reminds me; there should be less of it, IMO. I mean really, who throws away cartons of cigarettes and leaves supermarkets filled with food untouched? I know it seems like nitpicking, and it probably is, but the abundance of loot doesn't make sense to me. The abundance of weapons I can understand, because well, 'Murica.

 

A few people on the New Vegas dev team made a mod that reduces loot and increases hardcore mode, and it makes the game a lot more challenging/fun (to me, anyway). I hope Bethesda follows suit with Fallout 4, but it's not a big deal I suppose, since I could always just mod it to my liking.

If vehicles were added, would anyone else like to see the Vertibird handled like power armor? As in, you have to get special "Vertibird training" before you can fly it?

 

I think that would be neat.

Same here and it makes sense. It's not as if some random wastelander would know how to fly one. Maybe it could be done using a flight simulator, like the Boomers at Nellis AFB?


lazy.
  • lazy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#600

Posted 30 December 2013 - 08:06 PM

I liked seeing food and stuff left behind in supermarkets. I think instead of getting rid of supermarket loot (lol) altogether, places where there is food lying around should perhaps be guarded by some low-level gang members like Raiders or Powder Gangers, since they'd sort of be guarding the food for themselves.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users