Fallout 4

[baptiste]

I was mostly just meaning the game as a whole, not minor things that can or cant be changed easily.

 

Fallout 3, Oblivion, Skyrim.

 

All amazing because you were allowed to play truely as yourself, go in any direction and do what you want.

 

I felt that New Vegas forced you down the same route regardless and most things in the game were just there to be completed, and not to be replayed, nobody is going to piss off a faction they dont need to, because you get benefits for having them as allies. So my world basically has no hostile human enemies other than fiends who I get bored of and the odd one or two viper gangers, which I dont fancy reloading all the time just to keep shooting.

 

It added some decent new weapons and shooting mechanics but overall was nowhere near as unpredictable as fallout 3. So many awesome random things could happen.

 

Never once would you find an enemy lurking out of their specific zone in New Vegas. The world was practically a dead drone doing the same thing and never had any life.

 

Also, I hate choosing sides, I want to do ALL the missions, and not be owned by anyone or piss some group off just for stealing their toilet paper.

 

 

Fallout 3 and Skyrim have ENDLESS replayability, which is what I want, I want to constantly go back into areas after the enemies respawn and actually have something to do.

 

Everything in Fallout 3 was way more horrific in terms of a wasteland, New Vegas felt way too safe. And in a way, boring and dull.

This rings especially true to me, and I think alot of it comes down to random encounters which made fallout 3 for me. Going from 400 hours of F3 roaming to NV was a massive f*cking dissapointment, everything was just...dead. The world had no life.

[Pat]

All amazing because you were allowed to play truely as yourself, go in any direction and do what you want.

In Fallout 3 I was forced to be a Vault dweller in my early 20s searching for my lost father. In New Vegas, I can be any age, with any background story, with any objective. I can help whoever I want, I can kill whoever I want. In Fallout 3, I can only help the Brotherhood of Steel and a majority of characters are marked with Essential tags meaning I cannot kill them. It's the same in Skyrim - I think I came across more NPCs that I couldn't kill than NPCs that I could kill. I'm exaggerating, obviously, but my point is that essential tags shouldn't even exist in an RPG, let alone be used as excessively as they were in Skyrim.

 

 

Also, I hate choosing sides

Then you shouldn't be playing an RPG. RPGs are all about offering as many choices as possible. I also don't understand how you think more choices means less replayability - why would I be less tempted to play through a game where I can make different choices and progress through the story in a completely different way, than a game where I do exactly the same thing but have a few different meaningless NPCs to kill?

 

And as far as "endless replayability" goes, I can barely tell the differences between dungeons in Skyrim. They all use similar layouts, similar enemies, similar everything. They began to bore me before anything else in the game.

[CryptReaperDorian]

Everything in Fallout 3 was way more horrific in terms of a wasteland, New Vegas felt way too safe. And in a way, boring and dull.

To be honest, I really want to see a "middle ground". Fallout 3 practically has only one "safe haven". I know it's a post-apocalyptic game, but I don't think we should be forced into the wasteland for over 95% of your playing time. With Fallout: New Vegas, everything did feel too clean. The only way you would suffer from heavy radiation in that game is if you're looking to do just that (or you're visiting that location for a quest or for a rare item). If you learned where all the enemies spawn, then you can literally walk across the entire map with very few enemy encounters.

 

So, I hope that Fallout 4 has a decent "middle ground" when it comes to atmosphere.

[darthYENIK]

I think FO3 had a great atmosphere, and you never knew when you would turn a corner and be face to face with a super mutant, or a band of raiders, or maybe you did, and you had to sneak past them. In NV I think they made massive improvements to the technical side of things. Such as, at least on Xbox 360, there always seemed to be hiccups when you equipped a new weapon in FO3 (especially when using the D-pad for hotkeys, where you sometimes had to jam on the pad several times before it even registered, which sucks in battle), it wasn't so much of a problem in NV. And overall I felt NV held a little closer to the roots of the series' theme of even the good guys are assholes. Where the Brotherhood of Steel care only about themselves, the NCR believe they know what's good for everyone, and there are factions all over the place that if you don't play your cards right, will kill on sight. I think in NV the enemies spawned a lot less than FO3, and even in that game I don't think random enemies spawned enough. Also, for a city that seemingly was untouched by the nuclear attacks, there was nothing around to indicate that there was a city, besides the strip. Especially on the east side of the city, where there is nothing. No ruins really, just a couple houses and a farm. It didn't feel organic. I think both games do a lot of good, enough to where I love them both, but if they combined the good stuff from both games, add some elements from Skyrim, it could be the greatest game of all time.

[Secura]

Thats because of the PS3, complain to SONY, bethesda deserves no hate for the sh*tty infrastructure sony put in their machine.

Also the tiny amounts of RAM. I mean sh*t, it's a wonder PS3s run open-world games at all.

Oh, Really?

 

Because i never had big framerate drops in:

 

-GTA IV: Complete Edition

-Red Dead Redemption

-LA. Noire

-Saints Row 2

-Far Cry 2

-inFAMOUS

-inFAMOUS 2

-Assassin's Creed II

-Assassin's Creed:Brotherhood

-Assassin's Creed:Revelations

-Midnight Club: Los Angeles

-Dark Souls

-Just Cause 2

-Dead Island

 

Do you know why?

Because none of those open-world games are developed by Bugthesda, sure there were little framerate drops sometimes but it never got to the point where it became f*cking UNPLAYABLE like Skyrim/Fallout:NV/Fallout 3.

 

Now please do all of us a favor and get out of here with your fanboy-ish crap. Kthxbai

 

Edit: Grammar

None of those games are anywhere near as big as FO3 or Skyrim. Besides Bethesda still use a version of an engine from the 90's so it's quite amazing that there are so few glitches in the game. I probably had more glitches in RDR than in Skyrim/Fallout 3 combined, and don't you dare say R* are lazy c*nts.

 

OT: F03 and Skyrim are both great games so I'm really looking forward to see what Bethesda'll be doing on the next generation of hardware. New engine, new engine, new engine, new engine ........

[Tycek]

Coming back to topic.

 

I got few ideas regarding setting FO4 near Boston (if that's really true). You'll be guy who was put to cryo sleep before the war (rare illness, strange FEV reaction or something similar that could give you some breakdowns) in the basement of MIT and who was woke up by one of the scientists. You'll be caught up in a conflict between crazied ZAX AI, which want to use androids as its army and took control over MIT, scientists who want to stop ZAX and also shut down all androids (which are generally unstable) and railroad movement who wants to free androids and gave them men's rights.

 

This would let us to have character what we want, with some personal issue (finding cure for our dissease) and political issue (conflict between factions). BoS, Enclave and Mutants shouldn't be included this time, but we may want to see something new and not seen before factions and races.

 

What do you think about it?

[sivispacem]

I like that idea a great deal. I'd like to see (yes, I'm fully aware that there is a pre-existing F4 topic but I don't care);

 

1) Less emphasis on the "big" factions, and more on individual towns, sub-groups et cetera. Whose to say the various scientists, geniuses, staff descendants and satellite organisations actually get on with each other? I don't think the idea of these big, imperial organisations properly reflect the day-to-day life of someone living a few hundred years down the line from a nuclear apocalypse- so in my view, any "big government" should be a lot less visible and much more implied, and small factions with less-than-clear dividing lines, internal squabbles and conflict, which would give a player character plenty of scope to make friends or alienate factions and groups as he/she saw fit without drastically impacting on the storyline. As such, I think it really needs a large number of faction-specific quests and objectives, with reputation with one faction potentially impacting on your reputation with others and thereby preventing you from completing certain quests, obtaining certain rewards ect.

 

2) Non-linear start. I don't want to be a prescribed individual of prescribed origin, I want to be able to choose from a selection of options which lead to me being a resident of a certain settlement, having certain starting traits and pre-existing reputations with factions. Or if I want to be a true "lone wanderer", I can eschew all of these original starts and wake up, in suitable style, in, say, an abandoned building, with my lack of existing reputation with factions being counteracted by, say, a bag containing some mid-level food items, water, ammunition and a few valuables for trade. That way, we can really take ownership of the player character. Better visual customisation, including perhaps tattoos which could prompt certain reactions and therefore certain dialogue options from NPCs.

 

3) More modularity. I loved the weapon mods in NV and the improvements to gun play, ammo types, throwing weapons ect, but I felt that this was rather done at the expense of crafting. They did, after all, basically remove craft-able weapons from the game and in a post-apocalyptic future I'm pretty sure that people are going to be modifying existing weapons or building up new ones in ways that don't match the three-random-mods idea of NV. Of course, the modding community has done this to some extent but its the kind of thing that takes skilled developers, modellers and coders very little time to enact for a great increase in immersion...well, why wouldn't you? The same goes for armour. As well as the obvious (say, a lucky necklace), why not have holsters (that give you the quick-draw perk for one-handed pistols and automatic weapons as long as they are equipped), backpacks (which give you lots of extra weight allowance at the cost of agility) or even flak vests or armoured torso pieces, made from scavenged security or combat armour, that you could sling on over a tatty set of leather armour or merc outfit for an added boost in damage threshold.

 

4) Playable ghouls. Just because.

[The Killa]

 

Fallout 3 was easily the best.

 

I respect your onion but I completely disagree.

 

FO3 certainly isn't a terrible game, infact it's alright if all you want to do is run around and explore. Though there were lots of problems. Lots of plot holes accompanied with an already stupid and dull story (water filtering? After 200 years of living in sh*tty wastelands and they only figure out water filtering now?). Very little variety in voice acting. Terrible roleplaying options and no real meaningful choices to be had (perhaps except Megaton, but otherwise it's all laughable). A nonsensical karma system where you could blow up Megaton but give out enough water bottles to the homeless and you'll eventually become Jesus again. Bugs aplenty. The DC area was a pain in the ass. The game itself stagnates at an incredibly easy level of difficulty that really doesn't command the player anything more than going in VATS and clicking on the head a few times (I'm not the biggest fan of NV, but at least they fixed that problem). And these are just the few of the problems.

 

It's an alright action-adventure game with some stats. As an RPG (what Fallout is), it's nowhere even close to being the best.

Edited August 23, 2012 by The Killa

[Secura]

 

I like that idea a great deal. I'd like to see (yes, I'm fully aware that there is a pre-existing F4 topic but I don't care);

 

1) Less emphasis on the "big" factions, and more on individual towns, sub-groups et cetera. Whose to say the various scientists, geniuses, staff descendants and satellite organisations actually get on with each other? I don't think the idea of these big, imperial organisations properly reflect the day-to-day life of someone living a few hundred years down the line from a nuclear apocalypse- so in my view, any "big government" should be a lot less visible and much more implied, and small factions with less-than-clear dividing lines, internal squabbles and conflict, which would give a player character plenty of scope to make friends or alienate factions and groups as he/she saw fit without drastically impacting on the storyline. As such, I think it really needs a large number of faction-specific quests and objectives, with reputation with one faction potentially impacting on your reputation with others and thereby preventing you from completing certain quests, obtaining certain rewards ect.

 

2) Non-linear start. I don't want to be a prescribed individual of prescribed origin, I want to be able to choose from a selection of options which lead to me being a resident of a certain settlement, having certain starting traits and pre-existing reputations with factions. Or if I want to be a true "lone wanderer", I can eschew all of these original starts and wake up, in suitable style, in, say, an abandoned building, with my lack of existing reputation with factions being counteracted by, say, a bag containing some mid-level food items, water, ammunition and a few valuables for trade. That way, we can really take ownership of the player character. Better visual customisation, including perhaps tattoos which could prompt certain reactions and therefore certain dialogue options from NPCs.

 

3) More modularity. I loved the weapon mods in NV and the improvements to gun play, ammo types, throwing weapons ect, but I felt that this was rather done at the expense of crafting. They did, after all, basically remove craft-able weapons from the game and in a post-apocalyptic future I'm pretty sure that people are going to be modifying existing weapons or building up new ones in ways that don't match the three-random-mods idea of NV. Of course, the modding community has done this to some extent but its the kind of thing that takes skilled developers, modellers and coders very little time to enact for a great increase in immersion...well, why wouldn't you? The same goes for armour. As well as the obvious (say, a lucky necklace), why not have holsters (that give you the quick-draw perk for one-handed pistols and automatic weapons as long as they are equipped), backpacks (which give you lots of extra weight allowance at the cost of agility) or even flak vests or armoured torso pieces, made from scavenged security or combat armour, that you could sling on over a tatty set of leather armour or merc outfit for an added boost in damage threshold.

 

4) Playable ghouls. Just because.

I love these ideas, most specifically the one that focuses more emphasis on individual towns and the like. I'd have loved to have had a sub-faction in FNV that's a part of either of large towns or groups such as Caesar's Legion, perhaps the Legate Lanius may have different agendas to Caesar.

 

I think one of the main reasons that this'd work so well in the Fallout Universe is that it's just not feasible for all of the factions in the game to get along so well when the game features tons of individual characters that have different backgrounds and thoughts on things; Fallout as a whole just seems to brim with interesting people but the fact that they cannot act out the way that they should do really bugs me, it bugs me so much that the mission in FNV in which you've got to identify the person who sold Boone's wife over to the legion was my favourite.

 

Perhaps one of the biggest reasons for that being my favourite mission would be the fact that you actually got to find out what people in the town of Nipton actually thought of each other, you also saw that people can wear masks and hide their true personalities from you. I'd have never, ever envisioned who actually performed the terrible deed and as such I was genuinely excited about the prospect of people in the game having different hidden agendas in which the player could partake in and either help, or hinder them.

 

Now, your thoughts on a non linear start are both good and bad. The reason that your idea about a non linear beginning might not work that well is the fact that a well structured linear beginning can give you some genuine feelings for the characters- FO3's characters meant more to me then FNV's ever did.

[El Dildo]

4) Playable ghouls. Just because.

if they allow Ghouls as a selectable race then they have to introduce an entirely new survival system.

 

you should have to keep finding a steady supply of meds otherwise you begin to turn feral.

it's not enough to keep yourself hydrated and eating, you have to keep your mind from decaying into madness.

[sivispacem]

4) Playable ghouls. Just because.

if they allow Ghouls as a selectable race then they have to introduce an entirely new survival system.

 

you should have to keep finding a steady supply of meds otherwise you begin to turn feral.

it's not enough to keep yourself hydrated and eating, you have to keep your mind from decaying into madness.

Stims don't work (or do for a short time and then leave you feeling even worse), you have to find radiation or consume irradiated meat/water. As well as requiring food/water/sleep you require radiation frequently, otherwise you start losing strength/endurance. Would completely turn the game on it's head.

[El Dildo]

ok I like it.

 

now if we're going go down this path, would you be open to the idea of allowing Super Mutants as a playable race?

with similar survival mechanics.

[sivispacem]

now if we're going go down this path, would you be open to the idea of allowing Super Mutants as a playable race?

with similar survival mechanics.

Problem would be unless you biased the game away from action and towards RPG, the super mutants would be very overpowered. There's little in FO3/NV you can't do with high combat skills.

 

 

Now, your thoughts on a non linear start are both good and bad. The reason that your idea about a non linear beginning might not work that well is the fact that a well structured linear beginning can give you  some genuine feelings for the characters- FO3's characters meant more to me then FNV's ever did.

For NPCs, I completely agree. For player characters, I feel it would be better to be able to project your own back-story onto them with the choices you make at start/early in the game. Having the history of your player character revealed in a way specific to what choices you make, where you chose to start, who you ally yourself with and any traits you take wouldn't be unduly difficult and would make every play-through truly unique.

[Secura]

4) Playable ghouls. Just because.

if they allow Ghouls as a selectable race then they have to introduce an entirely new survival system.

 

you should have to keep finding a steady supply of meds otherwise you begin to turn feral.

it's not enough to keep yourself hydrated and eating, you have to keep your mind from decaying into madness.

Stims don't work (or do for a short time and then leave you feeling even worse), you have to find radiation or consume irradiated meat/water. As well as requiring food/water/sleep you require radiation frequently, otherwise you start losing strength/endurance. Would completely turn the game on it's head.

I rather like the idea of having to avoid radiation as a Ghoul as the more exposure to radiation you have might perhaps increase your chances of turning feral.

[Mr Rabbit]

we heard of the commonwealth and the institute (MIT it seems) in F3 a tad, always wondered why it was never a dlc like the pitt (we heard of that and it was a dlc) this would explain it, but also that is probably one of the reasons for such rumour, I would like it to be set in boston, very historical city, we will see Dr Li perhaps as in BS it was said she went there

 

Most importantly, what number will our vault suit have

ok maybe not MOST important

 

I think fallout needs a save importer thingy (like mass effect series)

so the decisions you make that could affect the boston area will lay it's affect

For instance. In the quest The Replicated Man

If you killed zimmer, they would mention Zimmer died in the capital wasteland looking for his android, if you turned A3-21/harkness in then you see zimmer and A3-21 in the institute

or at the end of FO3 vanilla

if you put the FEV virus in the thingy then Dr Li (if she is there) will mention how something went wrong with project purity and if you left it alone she will mention project lurity more positively and mention perhaps, the lone wanderer's sacrifice (if it were made) - unknowing that he/she survived and woke up 2 weeks later to kick the enclave in their collective gonads, but mentions that she suspects his/her intervention in said gonad kicking

 

things like that

Edited September 20, 2012 by NateShaw92

[El Dildo]

save importing would be nice I guess.

 

but it's also not really necessary.

so far, each new Fallout game has been far enough removed from the previous that it's kind of irrelevant.

 

when you go all the way from DC to Nevada, the events don't really have any bearing on one another.

the world is still very disconnected, after all.

[disco]

Are there no more hints anywhere or anything about Fallout 4? I'm dying for it to be announced and to see a trailer!

[Slingaa]

What I'd like to see in FO4 is more melee weapons and more of a focus on survival. I loved New Vegas but I thought it lacked the post-apocalyptic atmosphere FO3 had. The Mojave Wasteland was nice, but it didn't feel like I was in a world which had been decimated by nuclear bombs. I know why, but the feeling that thrived in FO3 just wasn't there. I hope to see more of a focus on melee and makeshift weapons (bows, clubs etc) and less of a focus on guns and gatling lasers, which I feel would give the game more of a gritty tone.

[Secura]

What I'd like to see in FO4 is more melee weapons and more of a focus on survival. I loved New Vegas but I thought it lacked the post-apocalyptic atmosphere FO3 had. The Mojave Wasteland was nice, but it didn't feel like I was in a world which had been decimated by nuclear bombs. I know why, but the feeling that thrived in FO3 just wasn't there. I hope to see more of a focus on melee and makeshift weapons (bows, clubs etc) and less of a focus on guns and gatling lasers, which I feel would give the game more of a gritty tone.

I love this idea, I'd hope that weapon condition system could be upgraded to such an extent that your guns could jam if they weren't maintained properly and maybe even explode in your hands. The potential of actually being screwed over by firearms would make melee weaponry a much more sensible option.

 

I'd also like it if they let Melee Weapons pack much, much more of a punch - just so it doesn't feel like you're swinging at ghosts and really swinging at people. I'd also hope they improve the damage and gore system further so you can have "realistic" body damage, similar to that of Red Dead Redemption's - IE: you could break a guys leg with a sledge hammer and he'd react accordingly rather then holding his side and limping away.

[Pat]

 

I loved New Vegas but I thought it lacked the post-apocalyptic atmosphere FO3 had. The Mojave Wasteland was nice, but it didn't feel like I was in a world which had been decimated by nuclear bombs.

I don't know why, to this day, people still do not understand that Fallout is not about post-apocalypticism. The whole focus of the series was always civilization being rebuilt after the apocalypse had come and gone. "Post-post-apocalypse" is a f*cking stupid term, but it's what I see commonly used to describe the series, and - stupid or not - it is accurate.

 

Fallout 3 isn't considered a true Fallout game by many of the fans because it strayed away from this concept. If you enjoyed it, that's fine, but I'm sure I'm one of many people who would rather see Fallout stay with the original intent than go back to Bethesda's half-baked concept of what it should have been. If they're so determined to make a post-apocalyptic RPG, they should just make a new IP instead of piggybacking off of Black Isle's - and by extention, Obsidian's - lore, and desecrating it in the process.

[The-King]

I loved New Vegas but I thought it lacked the post-apocalyptic atmosphere FO3 had. The Mojave Wasteland was nice, but it didn't feel like I was in a world which had been decimated by nuclear bombs.

I don't know why, to this day, people still do not understand that Fallout is not about post-apocalypticism. The whole focus of the series was always civilization being rebuilt after the apocalypse had come and gone. "Post-post-apocalypse" is a f*cking stupid term, but it's what I see commonly used to describe the series, and - stupid or not - it is accurate.

 

Fallout 3 isn't considered a true Fallout game by many of the fans because it strayed away from this concept. If you enjoyed it, that's fine, but I'm sure I'm one of many people who would rather see Fallout stay with the original intent than go back to Bethesda's half-baked concept of what it should have been. If they're so determined to make a post-apocalyptic RPG, they should just make a new IP instead of piggybacking off of Black Isle's - and by extention, Obsidian's - lore, and desecrating it in the process.

You do realize a locale like Washington DC just given Fallout lore couldn't have been done any other way, not to mention the constant talk of similar places in lore, namely Denver which is supposed to pretty much be a toxic hell on earth packed full of feral hounds and raiders. The two coasts are two completely different places, the NCR have colonized and settled the west coast pretty effectively, it's still more of a wild west than anything, but as opposed to the East coast it's seemingly a paradise. Geography is everything, the only thing Bethesda did wrong with Fallout 3 was the crap-heap convoluted storyline. It was still post-post-apolyptica, look at all of the stupid petty squabbles all over the wasteland between the numerous settlements, there was of course several overarching conflicts that I completely agree took and blindly stomped all over the lore (namely, the lolEnclaveareevilfearus thing), but the game as a whole was still quality.

[Slingaa]

I loved New Vegas but I thought it lacked the post-apocalyptic atmosphere FO3 had. The Mojave Wasteland was nice, but it didn't feel like I was in a world which had been decimated by nuclear bombs.

I don't know why, to this day, people still do not understand that Fallout is not about post-apocalypticism. The whole focus of the series was always civilization being rebuilt after the apocalypse had come and gone. "Post-post-apocalypse" is a f*cking stupid term, but it's what I see commonly used to describe the series, and - stupid or not - it is accurate.

It's probably because Fallout 3 was a lot of people's first Fallout game (including me). I have played FO1, 2 and Tactics since but when I think of Fallout I think of sparse wastelands, radiation and mutated creatures. The thing is I thought it felt weird in New Vegas when there were mutated creatures all over but the shop, but very few sources of radiation.

[The-King]

 

I loved New Vegas but I thought it lacked the post-apocalyptic atmosphere FO3 had. The Mojave Wasteland was nice, but it didn't feel like I was in a world which had been decimated by nuclear bombs.

I don't know why, to this day, people still do not understand that Fallout is not about post-apocalypticism. The whole focus of the series was always civilization being rebuilt after the apocalypse had come and gone. "Post-post-apocalypse" is a f*cking stupid term, but it's what I see commonly used to describe the series, and - stupid or not - it is accurate.

It's probably because Fallout 3 was a lot of people's first Fallout game (including me). I have played FO1, 2 and Tactics since but when I think of Fallout I think of sparse wastelands, radiation and mutated creatures. The thing is I thought it felt weird in New Vegas when there were mutated creatures all over but the shop, but very few sources of radiation.

Most of them had a notable source, the Super Mutants came from the master's army, Radsorpions, Cazadores and Nightstalkers all came from experiments at Big MT. I imagine Bighorners and Brahmin were brought by homesteaders from the NCR and Ghouls were either formed in the radiation bombing in Searchlight or came with Bright and his followers. Deathclaws seem to have come out of nowhere more or less, suddenly nesting all over the mojave (presumably remnants of Enclave FEV experiments that bred rapidly). I also imagine lakelurks and bloatflies migrated from somewhere else far more irradiated.

Edited September 24, 2012 by The-King

[Dragonjack]

Fallout 4 announcement coming like "soon?" or a Fallout movie? Better check this out then!

 

 

"Bethesda is readying a Fallout related announcement, according to voice actor Erik Todd Dellums, who played radio DJ "Three Dog" in the developer's acclaimed post-apocalyptic RPG Fallout 3.

 

Dellums posted on Twitter that Galaxy News Radio host Three Dog will be making a return soon, and followed up saying that he was given the go ahead from official channels to make the announcement"

 

To see the tweets, it's right here.

 

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/38561...4-announcement/

[Tycek]

Quite disturbing news. If GNR is really going to make return it could mean that we will be back in Washington DC. I wonder what Bethesda is going to pull this time? I'd hope it won't be another half-assed Oblivion with guns piggybacking on Fallout name.

 

I'd also hope they learned something from Obsidian about story-telling and RPG mechanics, because If not, another game series will go down the crapper.

[Dragonjack]

Quite disturbing news. If GNR is really going to make return it could mean that we will be back in Washington DC. I wonder what Bethesda is going to pull this time? I'd hope it won't be another half-assed Oblivion with guns piggybacking on Fallout name.

 

I'd also hope they learned something from Obsidian about story-telling and RPG mechanics, because If not, another game series will go down the crapper.

You seriously think that Washington DC could make a return on Fallout 4? Damn that would be a "let down" indeed. Unless if Bethesda is making the world more bigger or vast and not using the same exact locations as Fallout 3. But I don't know really and it's just my opinion anyways. I hope it will be Boston though.

[Tycek]

Either we will get Washington DC again, since GNR building was located there and that would be huge letdown indeed or we will have Boston as it was stated in rumors, but Three Dog will have some kind mobile radiostation (since it's almost impossible to get radio signal from Washington into Boston). Both cases could mean that Bethesda will be playing with old toys, giving us Three Dog again, who will probably try to convince us to help the good fight. We'll also get BoS again and doctor Li, which will lead us to having almost the same story in different setting.

 

I really hope that we'll see something new, because if Bethesda will pull that crap again (with looking for someone, then for something and then fighting in war between heavenly good and hellish bad) I highly doubt I'll decide to spend my money on this.

 

Can't for God's sake Obsidian make the new FO with Bethesda serving as a publisher? Is it that much to ask?

[Forty]

 

Bethesda may be working on a new entry in the Fallout franchise, according to a voice actor from Fallout 3.

 

Erik Todd Dellums, who voiced Galaxy News Radio DJ Three Dog in the game, tweeted earlier today that it looked like he would be reprising his role in the near future.

 

To all my #Fallout3 and #ThreeDog fans: There may be more of the Dog coming! Fingers crossed!

 

— Erik Todd Dellums (@ETDellums) January 8, 2013

 

Almost more excitingly than this though is the fact that Dellums confirmed Bethesda gave him permission to release the tease. Taking to Twitter once more, he explained:

 

@toasttherabbit How was that for a tease! I was given permission to release that tease, so fingers crossed.

 

— Erik Todd Dellums (@ETDellums) January 8, 2013

 

Hopefully this means that the company itself won't be staying tight-lipped for much longer. Of course, there's no guarantee that this announcement is tied to a future Fallout game; whilst he refused to spill any more details about Three Dog's next appearance, Dellums did retweet a fan who suggested this could also mean a role for him in a Fallout movie.

 

@etdellums I know you can't say but I can state the obvious.. either 3 Dog in the fallout sequel or 3 dog in Fallout Movie. #letTheRumorsFly

 

— Toast Rabbit (@ToastTheRabbit) January 8, 2013

 

We heard rumours last August that Fallout 4 would be set in Boston, after Bethesda scouts were reported to be checking out the area from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The last Fallout game developed by Bethesda was released in 2008, with series spin-off Fallout: New Vegas serving as the most recent entry in the series developed by Obsidian Entertainment and released in 2010.

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/09/fal...dog-voice-actor

 

That makes me pretty happy. Fallout is one of my all-time favorite franchises and I've been itching for more Bethesda greatness after beating the ballsack out of Skyrim for 200+ hours. I was personally more of a F3 guy than a New Vegas guy when it comes to the latest two installments, but whatever direction they go will surely be fun and immersive.

[Radoonhagaydoon]

Next-gen i hope

[Forty]

Moderator (whomever it was), thanks for merging my post into here. I did a query beforehand but did not see this thread already.