Page 1 of 2

Fallout 4

Posted: 03 Jun 2015, 15:08
by UB_
It's a thing, finally.

The website went down fast (timer here http://fallout.bethsoft.com/) but here's how it looked.

It's set in Boston. In a hour or so the trailer should come out, rest of the news at E3.

Image

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 03 Jun 2015, 16:06
by UB_
TRAILER UP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnn2rJpjar4

As one would expect, gamebryo is still used. And it's really a lot like FO3. Like, might as well call it FO3.

I DON'T CARE IF IT LOOKS A BIT SHIT GRAPHICALLY I JUST WANT THIS FUCKING GAME RIGHT THE FUCK NOW THERE ISN'T A RELEASE DATE JESSUS CHRIST GODDAMN FUCK I NEED IT

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 03 Jun 2015, 19:48
by Mister_Prophet
We knew it was coming, we were just waiting for it to be official. I'm pretty stoked. New Vegas is one of the best games I've played in the last ten years and the series has always been a cut above. Many expectations for this.

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 03 Jun 2015, 22:45
by UB_
Mister_Prophet wrote:New Vegas


No Obsidian so likely the story will be stock-tier like Fallout 3's one.
Won't be surprised if you'll be forced to join the Brotherhood against the Enclave, again, though I think they learnt something from Skyrim.

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 04 Jun 2015, 05:04
by ebd
If they frame the story around a conflict and ask the player to choose a side I will be disappointed. In Skyrim it didn't really matter which the player chose as the story told wasn't really different between the two, just different character models voiced by the same 4 voice actors. As a result, choosing between the Imperials and the Stormcloaks was like choosing between Pepsi and Coke. It felt like the sandbox it was rather than the dynamic world they tried (unsuccessfully) to portray.

Bethesda's stories usually have very loose relationships with time as well. In the original Fallout 3, two hundred years after a nuclear war (a war so intense that the swampy DC area had been transformed into a dry and rocky wasteland), but somehow there were still intact buildings with 200+ year old food inside?

idk maybe I'm getting old

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 06 Jun 2015, 20:08
by Sat42
ebd wrote:If they frame the story around a conflict and ask the player to choose a side I will be disappointed. In Skyrim it didn't really matter which the player chose as the story told wasn't really different between the two, just different character models voiced by the same 4 voice actors. As a result, choosing between the Imperials and the Stormcloaks was like choosing between Pepsi and Coke. It felt like the sandbox it was rather than the dynamic world they tried (unsuccessfully) to portray.

Bethesda's stories usually have very loose relationships with time as well. In the original Fallout 3, two hundred years after a nuclear war (a war so intense that the swampy DC area had been transformed into a dry and rocky wasteland), but somehow there were still intact buildings with 200+ year old food inside?

idk maybe I'm getting old


You probably are :P
The thing is all these considerations don't really matter in fictions like these. Video game fictions in particular (because of the need to accomodate game mechanics and fun factor).
But at the end of the day, I don't think you're too old yet: the Star Shoal seems to have interesting physics at work :P "the ship is accelerating at a faster rate than before" implying it had been nonetheless accelerating for the past 366 days, and there's not much friction in interstellar space... not to mention that if you're literal about having to transport construction supplies halfway across the galaxy, then the Star Shoal completing the trip in 6 years is simply impossibly fast. But no one is really going to complain about that kind of stuff :P

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 09 Jun 2015, 21:52
by UB_
UBerserker wrote:
Mister_Prophet wrote:New Vegas


No Obsidian.


And no Avellone now, he left Obsidian today. Oh well.

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 10 Jun 2015, 01:31
by Mister_Prophet
awww, sad face.

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 15 Jun 2015, 08:50
by UB_
Bethesda also announced Dishonored 2 and that's cool.

Fallout 4 released on November 10th. VATS now slows down time and it got the exact same Mass Effect conversation system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QK_yEgsV0

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 15 Jun 2015, 14:54
by ividyon
Also, it has really cool interaction with the Pip-Boy, and house-building from the ground up! Woo!

It looks very interesting. By the time it's out I should be financially stable enough to just buy it on a whim, too. Hooray!

Wish there was a native Linux version, but haha, as if.

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 19 Jun 2015, 14:25
by Anreel
I like F3 and New Vegas.. in god mode =p combat is just clunky, unsatisfying hindrance.

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 19 Jun 2015, 14:42
by UB_
Between Fallout 4, Dishonored 2 and Doom 4 BETHESDA IS DOING A DAMN GOOD JOB

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 19 Jun 2015, 22:56
by Mister_Prophet
I'm always down for new Fallout, regardless. And new Doom is fast...that's all I wanted from Doom 3, so I'm happy.

I could care less about Dishonored, honestly. Tried twice to finish the first one and I always just lost interest. Dunno why, but I'd guess that I already had that experience with Bioshock and I didn't need to relive it. Game was fine, just...I didn't care.

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 19 Jun 2015, 23:30
by Sat42
OK all this talk about Fallout is prompting me to ask:
is it still worth playing through the original Fallout games, in this day and age? Knowing full well that they play... well, they're cluncky, and in light of Fallout: New Vegas which brings back a lot of the original flavour storywise?

I guess my question is too vague without context:
- I can play old games (no shit ^^ here I am, a member of a community dedicated to a late-90s game :P ), in fact there are other classics I have decided I want to play before moving on to more modern stuff: Baldur's Gate is on my to-do list, IMO Tomb Raider II has good graphics, and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory is still the most technologically advanced game I've ever owned and played for real :P
- I don't have that much time for this hobby.
- I love story-driven stuff (although - unlike a good friend of mine who now essentially just goes after games with a good narrative and little in terms of actual gameplay - gameplay can still act as a considerable draw for me, I haven't got to the point where I consider gameplay distracting and just want a good story!)

Of course, I'm only gonna get opinions, no foolproof reasoning, but that doesn't mean opinions can't be useful :P

Re: Fallout 4

Posted: 19 Jun 2015, 23:44
by Mister_Prophet
Fallout 1 and 2 are Clunky? I guess I've just become the old gamer is all and don't mind playing a game where I'm not button mashing so much as making a slow, deliberate decisions between single mouse clicks. Getting to places and talking to people may seem like a chore in the old game's graphics to people that have played 3 and onward, but that's because the game world and sense of discovery NOWADAYS has graduated from the Elder Scrolls Academy of You-Mean-I-Can-Touch-EVERYTHING?

Fallout 3 and New Vegas have a lot of bugs between them and are far less stable and on-the-fly accessible than the original games (I'd compare the first game to Oregon Trail in this regard. I occasionally make friends play it to see how long it takes them to find the water chip, or if they fail or quest themselves into a corner where they can't survive). I'd still say Fallout 2 and New Vegas (surviving members of 2 carried the torch into Vegas) are the cream of the series though.

A session of original Fallout can last an evening if you make the right choices, or poor ones.