arcanewizard

i always play as a breton and pretty much am a cloth wearing mage but i do use a crossbow and occasionally a sword just for fun but mostly use magic so breton is good for that.

i like her quite a bit...she is a bit overpowered though...she kills omst everything before you get a chance to do much...but she has a lot of personality for sure and a really fleshed out npc for a bethesda game.

i totally understand where you're coming from...not sure on the scale but its compressed obviously but as far as if the compression is different in different areas, i'm not sure, they have to balance a lot of elements, but its a big area thats f or sure...it tokok me a year almost to explore the entire map area.

i use mage followers, serana now but i've used used illia and eola a lot also and they all use staffs and their spells..i give em plenty of staffs, chain lighting, ice spikes, lightning bolt, fireball, ice storm. storm antronach, sangia rose...they use em all...don't worry about what hand they are doing what...sometimes they'll have two staffs armed, sometimes none...just give em some good enchanted clothing and jewelry also and they'll hold their own just fine. i give each mage follower like 5 or 6 staffs, they decide how to use em.

you must be on a pc...i play it on the 360 and i experience really almost no bugs whatsoever...but to the op yeah dawnguard jams...its a great dlc.

i haven't played dawnguard yet and i started a new game a few weeks ago and i also haven't got illia yet cause once you have her as a follower she can't be recruited again so does anyone know if you get seperated from your followers during the dawnguard quests, cause if you do i'll wait till i'm done with it to recruit illia...thx for anyone who can help. :)

i'm looking forward to the next fallout game...its been 4 years almost since FO3 came out...i'm fairly sure its gonna be out next year...FO3 was out 2 years after oblivion and skyrim was out last year, and they only have 2 franchises they actually develop themselves so its gonna be interesting to see what happens.

Well, as a Fallout purist I would vote for the southwest, maybe a visit to the Boneyard / Glow / Metropolis again and of course San Francisco. I love this setting and despite many people bashing F:NV I liked it very much because it had this "Fallout" feeling while Fallout 3 reminded me of a FP shooter with almost no choices for the main story. But I fear that Bethesda will continue jumping on the console train and produce another clicky-pointy-autopilot shooter. Therefore - guessing that it will come down to close quarters combat - I would like to have the Boston / MIT setting and a continuation of the Zimmer / Harkness issue. This would even have some taste of BLADE RUNNER! You could choose to hunt down the "replicants" - or help them flee... :thumbsup: the problem many people had with new vegas was a lack of exploration and interesting locations, a lack of human enemies, no good battlezones or tactical areas, no random encounters, nothing random ever happened...the same 3 bark scorpions spawn near the BoS bunker etc...it was a static gameworld...you show up in nipton, ceasers legion leaves and thats it for nipton...maybe the best town in the game..no raiders show up later, no powder gangers take it over. new vegas had a lot of weapons, mods, good perks, good npc development etc..it had a lot going for it...but its like it was an unfinished game. it had 3 huge dry lake beds and they took up like 1/3 of the map and nothing was in em except a few ants and scorpions. they needed to be more creative with the gameworld environment. most of the locations were a few tents or maybe a shack. and most of the enemies were creaatures..human enemies are always more interesting to fight...and you need tactical locations to battle it out in...FO3 had 100 times better locations for sneaking around and exploring.

With all due respect, fallout has no where else to go but to a rebuilding state. You saying that concept isn't "fallout" material is completely incorrect. Eventually in a post apocalyptic world you're going to have to...ya know....GAIN progress. It's been cool seeing all of the wasteland and areas around the United States dealing with the struggles of everyday life and seeing the inevitable power struggles that would indubitably occur (fallout NV). However I felt like they've explored that aspect of the situation enough, and now it's time to move on to the next step in a post apocalyptic world; rebuilding. You'd be foolish to presume that they'll go right to 9 to 5 jobs and what not right away. That's hundreds of years in the future from the start of the rebuilding process. As of what sorts of obstacles and problems you'll have to face in starting this process, and who you'll even be, is completely up to the developers. Personally if it were me developing the story however, i'd make the location in a populated city (any city will do) that is beaten up and half destroyed, but good to start building up walls and protection in order to clear it out of mutants/baddies and then have a place in order to provide shelter, distribute food, and possibly manufacture weapons/armors. Also making pacts and alliances with other groups (sort of like fallout NV but just a touch of it) could also be incorporated. That to me would be an amazing game concept and would also still have the post apocalyptic vibe. To me seeing a game series transcend and evolve with each new game would be revolutionary in the game industry, and just a fantastic idea all together. maybe in some areas there is some rebuilding, but the dc area was pretty messed up, so was the pitt area, and FO4 is gonna be a sequel to FO3, not a sequel to NV...so maybe the next obsidian FO game will focus on the more rebuilt west coast areas...but east coast is pretty devestated still...and besides. no game developer is ever hand tied....the mindset that "oh we have to have it rebuilt" thats an artifical barrier....so i don't see any fallout game being that rebuilt....they're gonna keep basic elements people associate with a "post apocalypse" like pockets of civilization, struggle to survive, exploration, enemies to deal with, various factons battling for power etc...you need enemies like super mutants, raiders, various factions against each other.

its gonna be interesting to see, FO4 will be a direct sequel to FO3, not New Vegas, so i'm not expecting FO4 to be a continuation of new vegas, i doubt its gonna be on the west coast, in FO3 the BoS were powerful after the end of the game, and the outcasts were still around, the supermutants were still around and even the enclave were still around after their defeat at adams air base...so not sure if some new factions are gonna be in power, i guess it depends on the exact locatrion, maybe the commonwealth area, so i'm sure some new factions will be introduced, probably another main type enemy like the enclave or some incarnation of them. using thier technology.

bethesda makes massive open worlds, i don't know of any game company that makes games as big as bethesda games,but saying they have a reputation for releasing games too early...their games are so big that you have to release the game at some point, you can't work on it forever and never release it, i think how they do it is fine. they release their games near the end of the year, and they work on em and patch problems afterword, i had skyrim the day it came out and it played fine. other than some quest bugs but the gameplay was fine. skyrim wasn't released too early and FO3 played fine also when it came out...you can't hold the game back forever ,they do need to sell their games at some point. and as it is, they only release a game every 2 or 3 years.

you can't have to much rebuilding or its no longer a post apocalyptic game, there's obviously areas with some civilization.. but the game is gonna have to keep its post apocalyptic feel or its not gonna be fallout...even the name of the game "fallout"...that says post apocalypse, so you can't have it too rebuilt, what makes it fun is it is post apocallyptic, with factions, small pockets of civilization, people struggling to survive, thats the theme, i don't see FO4 being in some rebuilt world where you have people working 9 to 5 jobs and driving home and turning on the tv to watch CNN.

i play it on xbox and i just started playing it again after almost 2 years, i loved FO3, its my favorite game of all time easily, i took me a year to really explore all the map the first time i played it....i don't think there's much on the map i haven't seen but a few things still, plus after a long time of not playing it, its kinda fun to revisit the game. i like fighting the enclave and supermutants.

new vegas seemed a bit boring after you played it once or twice i know its in a desert, but they could of put more stuff on the map, the airport near the bottom on the map, you couldn't go in any of the buildings, and it only had a few scorpions to kill, the towns were all pretty small, with no action hardly, yeah the powder gangers send 4 or 5 guys to attack goodsrpings, nipton, same thing, nothing is happening there, you get there, ceasers legion leaves and thats it, the map didn't have many places to explore, supermutants were only in a few spots and not even in cool areas like in FO3, they were in the city ruins in FO3, lots of good places to sneak around and hide..in new vegas were where they, on top of black mountain, that was ok but its was pretty linear, you had to follow the road up to the top and didn't have any place to sneak around and set traps for em etc, the factions all lived in campgrounds pretty much, like the powder gangers, ceasers legion, great khans, raiders, even ncr in a lot of cases, just a collection of a few tents, so the game was ok but its not on par with FO3, even though there were some better elements than in FO3 like weapons mods and weapons.. overall the exploration was much weaker than in FO3, locations and enemies to fight were not nearly as good as in FO3, in FO3 you had lots of good battlezones, dupont circle, la enfant plaza, georgetown, statesman hotel in and outside area, both sides of the capitol building, the mall, tons of huge areas inside like the cryslus building, LOB enterprises, or inside the capitol building, red racer factory, fort bannister those were epic locations with some fun exploration and battles, getting the geck was epic super mutant combat, it was awesome going in the national guard armory the first time, all those robots talking smak, that was classic to me. i'll never forget FO3, i played it for 2 years straight almost. new vegas i was done with after 2 months. as good as the story might of been, the weak exploration lack of fun locations to sneak around or fight was depressing.

well said and i agree, new vegas wasn't as interesting as far as areas to explore and enemies to fight as FO3, as for the next location of fallout i kinda agree with you on this also, detroit, chicago would be excellent cites to use for the next fallout, its gonna have a lot of city area i think, FO3 was orginally gonna be much more city area but they kept making it smaller down to where about 1/ 4 of it was city area, and that was from an interview i read with todd howard, many of the developers wanted more city but some thought it would be too complex, so i think much of the map is gonna be city type area, the opposite of new vegas and even more city area than FO3, almost for sure this is gonna be the case.

i agree, he has a general idea obviously but after the bad patch in skyrim initially i don't think they're gonina rush it too much, they're gonna make sure it works good first.

all those cities you mentioned would be fine, detroit, boston area, new york etc, almost for sure FO4 is gonna be centered around a big city, no doubt about that, its gonna have buildings and downtown areas, prob some industrial areas to explore etc, i don't see it being desolate like new vegas, apart from the city of new vegas, which i think could of been designed much better, the rest of new vegas was pretty barren, most of the areas were extremely empty other than some tents or a few shacks, i don't see FO4 being like that at all, i think its gonna be the opposite, its prob gonna have more city area than FO3 even and prob much better designed, without all the metro tunnels but other cool locations instead, i also don't see it being anywhere outside the united states, thats my view and i'm looking forward to it cause i know its gonna be a good game, bethesda doesn't make lousy games, they may not have a lot of depth when it comes to story or npc interaction, but for exploration and just overall gameword exploring and enemies to fight, and sneaking around, its gonna have all that.

well my guess is its gonna have a large city area, as much as i liked the city in FO3, i think it could of been even better, the way most of it was blocked off and although it did have lots of buildings you could go into, i wish there was more, like on the way to rivet city along the river, the only place you could go into was dukovs place, they don't all have to be in a seperate cell, i would have liked some of em just part of the same cell and area, but still enterable...i don't think we'll see desert, new vegas was pretty boring to me when it came to the actual environment. FO3 had radar stations, secret bases, power stations, lots of good citys areas to explore and stalk enemies in, parts of neighborhoods here and there, old buildings partly destroyed, new vegas did't realy have much of that it had a lot of tents and shacks and dry lake beds with nothing in em except a few ants or scorpions, i don't want to see that again, also i prefer fighting human enemies most of the time, in FO3 there were a lot of human type enemies, raiders, outcasts if you wanted, mercs, hunters, slavers, enclave, super mutants, and they patrolled the map unlike in new vegas, so you could run into those factions almost anywhere. so i'm looking forward to seeing what bethesda does with FO4.

they didn't make the environment interesting, not enough towns, the map was emtpy for the most part, i hope obsidian learns from this so the next fallout game they make is a bit more on par with other games when it comes to interesting environments, you can make a game in a desert and put in interesting locations, deserts do have small towns, airports, power stations, industrial type complexes etc, to just say its a desert and leave it emtpy doesn't cut it, FO3 had lots of good locations outside the city, with secret bases, power stations, towns, radar factilities etc. there is a lot more going on in and around las vegas that what they put in the game. they put in an airport near the bottom of the map and didn't do anything with it, you can't go inside it, nothing but a few scorpions. nipton was a cool town, but once you vistit the first time, no reason to go back, no raiders shows up, no ncr troops, no more ceasers legion etc. and putting in a lot of tents all over the map and a few single shacks here and there is bad game design.

I agree on things lacking in both games, if FO4 could be a merging of FO3 areas and battles with FNV character and RP elements it would be a amazing game. *crosses fingers* :thumbsup: when it comes to actual game environment, locations, enemies to fight and overall atmosphere, i think bethesda does a way better job, obsidian is prob stronger in the story part, npcs and character development, and they did a good job with combat mechanics, adding weapons mods, but they aren't quite as good with locations and areas to just explore and get lost in. i do hope they do another fallout game after FO4, that would be very cool to get 2 fallout games in a close period, kinda like FO3 and new vegas.

i like FO3s story, it had all the elements of a good story, drama, suspense, action....like when the enclave show up at the purifier, that was suspense, and after the waters of life quest the enclave would land shock troops with vertibirds, then having to get the geck, then getting kidnapped and having to espace raven rock...but the environment is where the game excelled, and new vegas was lacking human type enemies as well as good locations to just explore or battle, so i'm all for a good story but in an open world game, the environment needs to have a lot of points of interest, even if it is a desert, they could of added better things, like making ceasers legions base a bit more interesting instead of a few tents, all the ncr outposts were tents also, how about making some outposts in small towns or villages, instead of just a handful of tents, and the powder gangers pretty much just stood around in the middle of nowhwhere, so no matter how good the new vegas story is, most of the locations were bad, a few were ok, like where the fiends were, that area was decent, and some of the downtown area was acceptable but it was really lacking when it came to the environment, i liked the dam area, but those locations were small compared to the size of the map, most of the map was a big empty area with nothing but a few shacks and some tents. new vegas was ok, it was a decent game, but it didn't have the impact to me FO3 had. FO3 was just way more surreal and interesting overall.

by "gameworld" i'm not talking about characters, i'm talking about the actual environment, lack of things to get lost in and explore, there are not many buildings in the new vegas to sneak around in, hide, etc, no good combat or exploration locations, i can name tons of good locations in FO3, la enfant plaza, both sides of the capitol building and inside and out, the statesmen hotel area, dupont plaza , the mall area, red racer factory, mama dulces, the national guard armory, fairfax ruins, chryslus building, chevy chase and georgetown area, seward square, etc, there is no comparison when it comes the the actual exploration and places to stalk and fight enemies, FO3 just blows away new vegas in this area so much so that it will always be remembered as an epic game. new vegas just didn't have any of that, the environment was poorly designed and had an utter lack of interest. making the main ceasers legion base just a few tents is not good game design. its boring, much more artistic license needed to be employed in new vegas.

no amount of mods can make new vegas good, the gameworld itself is lame, 95% of the map is just desert with a few shacks and lots of tents, the environment itself is boring as hell...no nooks and crannies to battle it out, or sneak around or explore etc. obsidian has a lot to learn about making gameworlds. what a joke new vegas is.

new vegas was emtpy and barren, it was pretty boring for me to be honest, the gameworld was mostly tents and a few shacks, apart from the small towns. the city area which was pretty bland really, what makes a wasteland good isn't a desert, a city can be a wasteland, but obviously the downtown area didn't have that feel because obsidian didn't give the game a post apocalyptic feel, but more a feeling of "rebuilding", which to me is a joke, i could do without the cowboy/gangster theme also, that was stupid, but new vegas was mostly desert without much to explore...and since bethesda will be making FO4 and they are much better at making a gameworld and filling it up with plenty to do and still have the post apocalyptic feel. FO4 will mostly likely be centered around a large city, and i'm sure its gonna have a post apocalyptic feel much like FO3.