Fallout 4 Ideas

[MichaelEssien]

Can I just ask, what's all the hate for Fallout 3?

 

I thought it was a very good game, the story was good, it had some decent side quests, the map was very good also. The weapons where incredibly blunt I'll agree but I still liked the whole game in general, I thought it was really well done. As for writing I'm not to sure if I can even remember, I must've played it about 2 or 3 years ago I haven't touched it since. But I do prefer it to New Vegas even though I do just play Vegas now.

 

I respect peoples opinions I'm just curious about it.

[GimmeBackMyMoney]

At risk of bringing up an old and repeated discussion, it's as said in many posts in this thread. The writing is poor, there's a lack of roleplaying, some locations don't make sense and the setting is nonsensical for its period.

 

I still love the game. The physical world depth keeps me captivated even after experiencing the superior writing of New Vegas. That's something Bethesda did do well.

 

Some of the side-quests are a little silly (like the one at Canterbury Commons) but they were fun. Just too far between.

 

Opinions on story vary. The few who like it find it more emotionally involved due to having to find your father (which IS a valid reason to like it), but on the Enclave's appearance I can't bring myself to care. I always found them one-dimensional, sociopathic, self-destructive and kind of boring. However, they should have died out by Fallout 3 since their main base of operations was destroyed in Fallout 2 and the NCR picked off remaining platoons. The game would also stay more true to the originals if the Outcasts were the real BoS and the BoS were given a totally different name (or better still, didn't include them).

 

These inconsistencies (among many others) and the lack of decent writing is what make some fans of the older games hate Fallout 3 (though most just miss the old way and don't go down the self-pity route). I think Bethesda just took liberties and I can accept it as "fanon", but Little Lamplight was a very bad idea. Bad idea.

 

All of these aren't relevant to whether or not I enjoy the game, but they are valid criticisms.

Edited July 8, 2013 by GimmeBackMyMoney

[MichaelEssien]

At risk of bringing up an old and repeated discussion, it's as said in many posts in this thread. The writing is poor, there's a lack of roleplaying, some locations don't make sense and the setting is nonsensical for its period.

 

I still love the game. The physical world depth keeps me captivated even after experiencing the superior writing of New Vegas. That's something Bethesda did do well.

 

Some of the side-quests are a little silly (like the one at Canterbury Commons) but they were fun. Just too far between.

 

Opinions on story vary. The few who like it find it more emotionally involved due to having to find your father (which IS a valid reason to like it), but on the Enclave's appearance I can't bring myself to care. I always found them one-dimensional, sociopathic, self-destructive and kind of boring. However, they should have died out by Fallout 3 since their main base of operations was destroyed in Fallout 2 and the NCR picked off remaining platoons. The game would also stay more true to the originals if the Outcasts were the real BoS and the BoS were given a totally different name (or better still, didn't include them).

 

These inconsistencies (among many others) and the lack of decent writing is what make some fans of the older games hate Fallout 3 (though most just miss the old way and don't go down the self-pity route). I think Bethesda just took liberties and I can accept it as "fanon", but Little Lamplight was a very bad idea. Bad idea.

 

All of these aren't relevant to whether or not I enjoy the game, but they are valid criticisms.

 

Ah I see, I only played a bit of Fallout 2, and that was a very long time ago when i was little. My dad used to play those first two games a lot, and I remember making a character once and having a go at it but I can't remember much. I can only remember starting off in some temple sort of thing and you fight some huge rad roach.

 

I definitely agree about the Enclave, it was silly to bring them back into it. However I really like Caesars Legion, I thought that was constructed really well, I thought the likes of the Burned man and Caeser himself where very iconic individuals. I'm hoping to see the Legion in the next Fallout, as for the BOS I like them, I wouldn't mind keeping them around.

 

So I do agree the story against the Enclave was quite s#*!, considering how they just came back all of a sudden and had so much power. I do find Caesars Legion a much bigger foe, that's if you're fighting against them. What I really loved about the fight between the Legion and the NCR, it's almost as if humanity from a thousand years ago vs's humanity to this very day, now it can be about corrupt polliticans and fighting over petty things. Whereas then it was more about loyalty and swearing oathes, as now it's oppertunity. But yeah the rivalry is a lot better in New Vegas, just what really pissed me off what not having any background, it would've been nice to find out something about yourself, and that's something what I didn't like about the game.

[dwarfvencookie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qlgZB1QErY&feature=c4-overview&list=UUqfPPCF9STfkZC0tgMDnLvg

[JimboUK]

Can I just ask, what's all the hate for Fallout 3?

 

I thought it was a very good game, the story was good, it had some decent side quests, the map was very good also. The weapons where incredibly blunt I'll agree but I still liked the whole game in general, I thought it was really well done. As for writing I'm not to sure if I can even remember, I must've played it about 2 or 3 years ago I haven't touched it since. But I do prefer it to New Vegas even though I do just play Vegas now.

 

I respect peoples opinions I'm just curious about it.

 

I don't hate it, it's a fun story led post apocalyptic shooter that was great with enough mods. What I want though is a Fallout RPG and I honestly don't think Bethesda are capable of delivering one. Bethesda are great at building interesting environments but nothing else, my ideal game would be one where Bethesda built the world and then handed it over to Obsidian so they could do the actual content.

[peadar1987]

 

At risk of bringing up an old and repeated discussion, it's as said in many posts in this thread. The writing is poor, there's a lack of roleplaying, some locations don't make sense and the setting is nonsensical for its period.

 

I still love the game. The physical world depth keeps me captivated even after experiencing the superior writing of New Vegas. That's something Bethesda did do well.

 

Some of the side-quests are a little silly (like the one at Canterbury Commons) but they were fun. Just too far between.

 

Opinions on story vary. The few who like it find it more emotionally involved due to having to find your father (which IS a valid reason to like it), but on the Enclave's appearance I can't bring myself to care. I always found them one-dimensional, sociopathic, self-destructive and kind of boring. However, they should have died out by Fallout 3 since their main base of operations was destroyed in Fallout 2 and the NCR picked off remaining platoons. The game would also stay more true to the originals if the Outcasts were the real BoS and the BoS were given a totally different name (or better still, didn't include them).

 

These inconsistencies (among many others) and the lack of decent writing is what make some fans of the older games hate Fallout 3 (though most just miss the old way and don't go down the self-pity route). I think Bethesda just took liberties and I can accept it as "fanon", but Little Lamplight was a very bad idea. Bad idea.

 

All of these aren't relevant to whether or not I enjoy the game, but they are valid criticisms.

 

Ah I see, I only played a bit of Fallout 2, and that was a very long time ago when i was little. My dad used to play those first two games a lot, and I remember making a character once and having a go at it but I can't remember much. I can only remember starting off in some temple sort of thing and you fight some huge rad roach.

 

I definitely agree about the Enclave, it was silly to bring them back into it. However I really like Caesars Legion, I thought that was constructed really well, I thought the likes of the Burned man and Caeser himself where very iconic individuals. I'm hoping to see the Legion in the next Fallout, as for the BOS I like them, I wouldn't mind keeping them around.

 

So I do agree the story against the Enclave was quite s***, considering how they just came back all of a sudden and had so much power. I do find Caesars Legion a much bigger foe, that's if you're fighting against them. What I really loved about the fight between the Legion and the NCR, it's almost as if humanity from a thousand years ago vs's humanity to this very day, now it can be about corrupt polliticans and fighting over petty things. Whereas then it was more about loyalty and swearing oathes, as now it's oppertunity. But yeah the rivalry is a lot better in New Vegas, just what really pissed me off what not having any background, it would've been nice to find out something about yourself, and that's something what I didn't like about the game.

 

 

 

The lack of background for you was a deliberate design choice on the part of the game developers, it's so that you can essentially role-play whatever back story you want for your character, with no real constraints. In Fallout 3 (and 1, and 2) you are kind of restricted in what sort of back story you can put to your character, which might channel you down a particular path.

 

It doesn't mean you have to like it, but it is a deliberate choice, not a mistake, oversight, or laziness.

[MichaelEssien]

 

 

At risk of bringing up an old and repeated discussion, it's as said in many posts in this thread. The writing is poor, there's a lack of roleplaying, some locations don't make sense and the setting is nonsensical for its period.

 

I still love the game. The physical world depth keeps me captivated even after experiencing the superior writing of New Vegas. That's something Bethesda did do well.

 

Some of the side-quests are a little silly (like the one at Canterbury Commons) but they were fun. Just too far between.

 

Opinions on story vary. The few who like it find it more emotionally involved due to having to find your father (which IS a valid reason to like it), but on the Enclave's appearance I can't bring myself to care. I always found them one-dimensional, sociopathic, self-destructive and kind of boring. However, they should have died out by Fallout 3 since their main base of operations was destroyed in Fallout 2 and the NCR picked off remaining platoons. The game would also stay more true to the originals if the Outcasts were the real BoS and the BoS were given a totally different name (or better still, didn't include them).

 

These inconsistencies (among many others) and the lack of decent writing is what make some fans of the older games hate Fallout 3 (though most just miss the old way and don't go down the self-pity route). I think Bethesda just took liberties and I can accept it as "fanon", but Little Lamplight was a very bad idea. Bad idea.

 

All of these aren't relevant to whether or not I enjoy the game, but they are valid criticisms.

 

Ah I see, I only played a bit of Fallout 2, and that was a very long time ago when i was little. My dad used to play those first two games a lot, and I remember making a character once and having a go at it but I can't remember much. I can only remember starting off in some temple sort of thing and you fight some huge rad roach.

 

I definitely agree about the Enclave, it was silly to bring them back into it. However I really like Caesars Legion, I thought that was constructed really well, I thought the likes of the Burned man and Caeser himself where very iconic individuals. I'm hoping to see the Legion in the next Fallout, as for the BOS I like them, I wouldn't mind keeping them around.

 

So I do agree the story against the Enclave was quite s***, considering how they just came back all of a sudden and had so much power. I do find Caesars Legion a much bigger foe, that's if you're fighting against them. What I really loved about the fight between the Legion and the NCR, it's almost as if humanity from a thousand years ago vs's humanity to this very day, now it can be about corrupt polliticans and fighting over petty things. Whereas then it was more about loyalty and swearing oathes, as now it's oppertunity. But yeah the rivalry is a lot better in New Vegas, just what really pissed me off what not having any background, it would've been nice to find out something about yourself, and that's something what I didn't like about the game.

 

 

 

The lack of background for you was a deliberate design choice on the part of the game developers, it's so that you can essentially role-play whatever back story you want for your character, with no real constraints. In Fallout 3 (and 1, and 2) you are kind of restricted in what sort of back story you can put to your character, which might channel you down a particular path.

 

It doesn't mean you have to like it, but it is a deliberate choice, not a mistake, oversight, or laziness.

 

 

Aye I understand what you mean, I suppose some people like that. It's strange because I'm one who uses my imagination rather than playing games for gameplay, but I would still prefer it to be one main storyline, although I understand what you mean, some might not like that.

 

 

 

Can I just ask, what's all the hate for Fallout 3?

 

I thought it was a very good game, the story was good, it had some decent side quests, the map was very good also. The weapons where incredibly blunt I'll agree but I still liked the whole game in general, I thought it was really well done. As for writing I'm not to sure if I can even remember, I must've played it about 2 or 3 years ago I haven't touched it since. But I do prefer it to New Vegas even though I do just play Vegas now.

 

I respect peoples opinions I'm just curious about it.

 

I don't hate it, it's a fun story led post apocalyptic shooter that was great with enough mods. What I want though is a Fallout RPG and I honestly don't think Bethesda are capable of delivering one. Bethesda are great at building interesting environments but nothing else, my ideal game would be one where Bethesda built the world and then handed it over to Obsidian so they could do the actual content.

 

 

Ain't played many other Obsidian games, Knights of the old republic 2 I played, It had better gameplay than the first, but Bioware as always was the better game due to the story.

 

Morrowind was one of my most favourite games I've ever played, it was such an independant game with so much to do in it. I've played the game so many times and I still don't think I have done everything, I also loved how you could just do anything you want and there was nothing in your way, like essential characters for instance.

 

I wish Fallout was more like that, as I think it can be too easy at times as it just tells you and points you in every direction and where to go. However I did like hardcore mode that was a really good thing they did, made the game much better with that.

[JimboUK]

 

 

 

At risk of bringing up an old and repeated discussion, it's as said in many posts in this thread. The writing is poor, there's a lack of roleplaying, some locations don't make sense and the setting is nonsensical for its period.

 

I still love the game. The physical world depth keeps me captivated even after experiencing the superior writing of New Vegas. That's something Bethesda did do well.

 

Some of the side-quests are a little silly (like the one at Canterbury Commons) but they were fun. Just too far between.

 

Opinions on story vary. The few who like it find it more emotionally involved due to having to find your father (which IS a valid reason to like it), but on the Enclave's appearance I can't bring myself to care. I always found them one-dimensional, sociopathic, self-destructive and kind of boring. However, they should have died out by Fallout 3 since their main base of operations was destroyed in Fallout 2 and the NCR picked off remaining platoons. The game would also stay more true to the originals if the Outcasts were the real BoS and the BoS were given a totally different name (or better still, didn't include them).

 

These inconsistencies (among many others) and the lack of decent writing is what make some fans of the older games hate Fallout 3 (though most just miss the old way and don't go down the self-pity route). I think Bethesda just took liberties and I can accept it as "fanon", but Little Lamplight was a very bad idea. Bad idea.

 

All of these aren't relevant to whether or not I enjoy the game, but they are valid criticisms.

 

Ah I see, I only played a bit of Fallout 2, and that was a very long time ago when i was little. My dad used to play those first two games a lot, and I remember making a character once and having a go at it but I can't remember much. I can only remember starting off in some temple sort of thing and you fight some huge rad roach.

 

I definitely agree about the Enclave, it was silly to bring them back into it. However I really like Caesars Legion, I thought that was constructed really well, I thought the likes of the Burned man and Caeser himself where very iconic individuals. I'm hoping to see the Legion in the next Fallout, as for the BOS I like them, I wouldn't mind keeping them around.

 

So I do agree the story against the Enclave was quite s***, considering how they just came back all of a sudden and had so much power. I do find Caesars Legion a much bigger foe, that's if you're fighting against them. What I really loved about the fight between the Legion and the NCR, it's almost as if humanity from a thousand years ago vs's humanity to this very day, now it can be about corrupt polliticans and fighting over petty things. Whereas then it was more about loyalty and swearing oathes, as now it's oppertunity. But yeah the rivalry is a lot better in New Vegas, just what really pissed me off what not having any background, it would've been nice to find out something about yourself, and that's something what I didn't like about the game.

 

 

 

The lack of background for you was a deliberate design choice on the part of the game developers, it's so that you can essentially role-play whatever back story you want for your character, with no real constraints. In Fallout 3 (and 1, and 2) you are kind of restricted in what sort of back story you can put to your character, which might channel you down a particular path.

 

It doesn't mean you have to like it, but it is a deliberate choice, not a mistake, oversight, or laziness.

 

 

Aye I understand what you mean, I suppose some people like that. It's strange because I'm one who uses my imagination rather than playing games for gameplay, but I would still prefer it to be one main storyline, although I understand what you mean, some might not like that.

 

 

 

Can I just ask, what's all the hate for Fallout 3?

 

I thought it was a very good game, the story was good, it had some decent side quests, the map was very good also. The weapons where incredibly blunt I'll agree but I still liked the whole game in general, I thought it was really well done. As for writing I'm not to sure if I can even remember, I must've played it about 2 or 3 years ago I haven't touched it since. But I do prefer it to New Vegas even though I do just play Vegas now.

 

I respect peoples opinions I'm just curious about it.

 

I don't hate it, it's a fun story led post apocalyptic shooter that was great with enough mods. What I want though is a Fallout RPG and I honestly don't think Bethesda are capable of delivering one. Bethesda are great at building interesting environments but nothing else, my ideal game would be one where Bethesda built the world and then handed it over to Obsidian so they could do the actual content.

 

 

Ain't played many other Obsidian games, Knights of the old republic 2 I played, It had better gameplay than the first, but Bioware as always was the better game due to the story.

 

Morrowind was one of my most favourite games I've ever played, it was such an independant game with so much to do in it. I've played the game so many times and I still don't think I have done everything, I also loved how you could just do anything you want and there was nothing in your way, like essential characters for instance.

 

I wish Fallout was more like that, as I think it can be too easy at times as it just tells you and points you in every direction and where to go. However I did like hardcore mode that was a really good thing they did, made the game much better with that.

 

 

A lot of the original Fallout people are at Obsidian which is why I think they're the perfect developer for the game. I loved Morrowind, it's probably my favourite game of all time, it had such an immersive and strange world that I actually felt part of. Compare Morrowind to what Bethesda has released since, Oblivion was dumbed down so much that it actually insulted the players intelligence, Fallout 3 was a step in the right direction but suffered from atrocious writing, Skyrim Is pretty but devoid of anything of interest, in fact I don't even feel like my player character is part of the world, it feels more like he/she is nothing more than a camera. I hope I'm wrong but I fear Fallout 4 is going to be awful, Skyrim sold well and will encourage them to continue down the path of removing substance and replacing it with mindless fluff.

[gunslinger6792]

I liked fallout 3 because of the story line for me I was emotionally invested in it. When the enclave killed "dad" I went on a war path, I hated those guys simple as that. In hindsight the enclave was pretty one deminisonal and so where the super mutants. They made it pretty clear that they were dumb so I always wondered where did they get their orders and supplies. I had read the fallout wiki before playing the game so I had some background info. In all honesty I thought the super mutants while fun were the weakest part of the game in terms of story telling. I really liked fallout 3 BoS and know fans of the orginal will hate for it. I thought f3's BoS where what they should've been if anything they would be Veronica's BoS. Having played fallout new vegas as much as I have I've come to like New Vegas. thats not to say that New Vegas doesn't have its flaws parts of its story are weak in my opinion but it does allow for greater RPG elements. For fallout 4 I'd like to see more "good guys" and "bad guys" but with more shades of gray and lots of stuff in between. That was one thing f3 got wrong and NV got right. I still go for the NCR in nearly every playthrough but they are flawed which is kind of nice. Fallout 4 needs to be fun to explore with locations that feel lived in and that I can care about. In f3 I cared about megaton and rivet city. In NV I don't really care for any place other than westside and freeside(and thats only because of the followers.) I could care less about any of the cities in Skyrim. Lets hope they don't make f4 skyrim. Skyrim is eye candy. Its fun to look at and fun to explore but thats it and half the places I don't explore because I have no desire to. You have to make the person care.

[GimmeBackMyMoney]

I agree with your post, but I want to add to some of your points:

 

I liked fallout 3 because of the story line for me I was emotionally invested in it. When the enclave killed "dad" I went on a war path, I hated those guys simple as that. In hindsight the enclave was pretty one deminisonal and so where the super mutants. They made it pretty clear that they were dumb so I always wondered where did they get their orders and supplies. I had read the fallout wiki before playing the game so I had some background info. In all honesty I thought the super mutants while fun were the weakest part of the game in terms of story telling.

 

I really liked fallout 3 BoS and know fans of the orginal will hate for it. I thought f3's BoS where what they should've been if anything they would be Veronica's BoS.

 

Fallout 4 needs to be fun to explore with locations that feel lived in and that I can care about. In f3 I cared about megaton and rivet city.

 

Skyrim is eye candy. Its fun to look at and fun to explore but thats it and half the places I don't explore because I have no desire to. You have to make the person care.

 

 

1) In addition, so were the Talon Mercenaries, whose only goal is to keep DC in turmoil. That alone could have more of a story element. Say the Enclave were just a different group formed from Enclave remnants (for now, let's just call them "Remnants") who have more of a dictatorial (rather than a self-destructive and sociopathic) nature and possess the Enclave's technological know-how. They could have hired Talon company to keep DC in a bad state and use them as a false flag so they can move in and rule DC, which would be a symbolic place for their president. They have the resources to give the Talon Mercenaries some incentive to carry out the job. This gives one "black" group some more significance AND the player some incentive to help the "other side" with even more opportunities presented in Broken Steel. What a waste.

 

2) That new BoS necessarily a bad idea, and the Elder does state the situation properly in game. It's credible. I'd still envision a different name group name though, while the Outcasts are appropriately named "Brotherhood of Steel".

 

3) Oh God yes, it helps when those locations have some significance, but Megaton and Rivet City could have been more populated too.

 

4) Following that, it would have been better if Fallout 3's locations gave the player some incentive to actually explore them. Some side quests, true unique items or boss enemies, for example. They don't have to be massive dungeons, just high in actual content.