Fallout 4 announced with teaser trailer

[lucastimothy]

In response to post #25831584.

Immo82 wrote: After reading these comments I have a feeling that Fallout 4 will suck big time. I bet they won't care one bit about what the fans want, they're just gonna make a Fallout version of mass effect mixed with CoD or some s#*! like that... Atleast I still have Torment - Tides of Numenera to look forward to.

I respect your opinion, but frankly disagree.

Bethesda Softworks has been working on Fallout 4 since Skyrim's release, which is almost 5 years now. Todd Howard stated and I quote, "We know what this game means to everyone," said Howard. "The time and technology have allowed us to be more ambitious than ever. We've never been more excited about a game, and we can't wait to share it." Bethesda has been known for releasing extremely well-made games that were ultimately a huge success; ie. Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, etc. In general, their track record is clean, except for having multiple glitches in their larger titles. Their last Fallout game was Fallout 3 as Obsidian worked on Fallout: New Vegas, and Todd as well as Bethesda realises their Fallout fanbase: I seriously doubt they would work this long and hard on a rather disappointing title. Most of these "comments" are pure speculation and rumours: the ONLY thing that is confirmed is everything you see in the official trailer, anything else, at all, is here-say or *cough* "educated" (if that word is appropriate) guesses.

[QDUB89]

In response to post #25834169.

Poacher886 wrote: I just cant stress enough how important the map size is to me. Skyrim / Fallout only became good / great games after approx 100 mods, the modders can incorporate just about everything from weapons to graphics to quests to buildings to complete overhauls.

But modders cant / dont / wont, increase the map size. Both Skyrim and especially fallout had tiny maps...a few sessions and you had it covered, a few more and you could tell the location from a screenshot, you wer neve more than a minutes walk from one of the two main roads in NV, you could never really get lost in any kind of wasteland, both games were limited by the small size and thus scope.

Now if we had a map 4x skyrim you then have a playground that with mods could go for years or certainly a long time before it became familiar....modders will fill the gaps in the games issues and make it a better game, you could have a least some semblance of a waste land which was not possible in FNV or any kind of forest in Skyrim etc.

The map size is everything, everything else can be modded in.

You want a completely new map or at least a modded one, then you take up programming/coding and do it yourself. A lot of people don't understand how daunting coding can really be. Some mods are made for years, released, and then improved for the next 5 years and can still have numerous bugs/glitches that sometimes even a team of modders don't understand why it's not working properly.

That and the fact that you are talking about, essentially, creating a new map (or modding the original one) takes a lot of room; not a lot of people want to take such a task of extending the map, let-alone the fact that now you have to retexture everything to blend in smoothly, code in hills, NPCs, building, quests, new lore, so on and so forth. You're talking about a crap ton of code. The "Tropical Skyrim" mod (for Skyrim, no duh) alone took at least a year to make (was release a year and a half after skyrim) and that is just a simple layer of code on top of the skyrim map, not actually coding the map to look/behave tropical; I can be standing in the middle of a desert and still get a SNOW storm. Physically extending the map would take YEARS and you're not even guaranteed it will work. Edited June 4, 2015 by QDUB89

[JimboUK]

In response to post #25832509. #25832534, #25832994, #25833799, #25833889 are all replies on the same post.

digitaltrucker wrote: Do any of you who are actually familiar with the Fallout franchise (or for that matter TES) truly believe that Bethesda would limit the player to a specific gender? That would be such a massive reversal of their traditional gameplay that it's frankly unbelievable. I don't buy it.

frogzilla98 wrote: +11111111111111111111111111

Lisnpuppy wrote: I said as everyone can see, "If it is true..." I don't know if it is true yet.

However I have seen big developers take what I felt is a step in the wrong direction. Let us look at Bioware/EA with the Dragon Age games. Each one became less moddable and limited your choices more each game.

If they want to write a game with a specific PC in mind for a story...that is their prerogative. I'm not even saying it CAN'T be good. I just would not be interested in RPGs that limit choice and ignore what has been happening in gaming. Women are gamers. It is impossible to deny that the 18-30 demographic white male gamer is no longer completely accurate.

The writing of the game, how good the game is, how well-done and bug-free *cough* a game is made is obviously the most important thing. But you can have all these things and more and give gamers a choice when making RPGs. After all...it stands for role playing right? Not much of role playing when even the gender option is removed.

I will wait to see what is confirmed. I am not saying I believe things..which again is why I said "IF" it is true. It would not, however, shock me in the least.

Traditionalfire wrote: http://kotaku.com/latest-popular-fallout-4-rumor-sure-seems-like-bs-1709009561

Of course they won't

Traditionalfire wrote: When it comes to character creation, DA: Inquisition has the most options for creating a character out of all the games. You can't choose your intro thing sure but you have a ton of options when it comes to character design.

@digitaltrucker I'm very familiar with the franchise, I've played all of the games, I'm also familiar with Bethesda and their record of removing important things every time they release a game. I really hope that Reddit post is a load of BS but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

[Poacher886]

In response to post #25834169. #25841134 is also a reply to the same post.

Poacher886 wrote: I just cant stress enough how important the map size is to me. Skyrim / Fallout only became good / great games after approx 100 mods, the modders can incorporate just about everything from weapons to graphics to quests to buildings to complete overhauls.

But modders cant / dont / wont, increase the map size. Both Skyrim and especially fallout had tiny maps...a few sessions and you had it covered, a few more and you could tell the location from a screenshot, you wer neve more than a minutes walk from one of the two main roads in NV, you could never really get lost in any kind of wasteland, both games were limited by the small size and thus scope.

Now if we had a map 4x skyrim you then have a playground that with mods could go for years or certainly a long time before it became familiar....modders will fill the gaps in the games issues and make it a better game, you could have a least some semblance of a waste land which was not possible in FNV or any kind of forest in Skyrim etc.

The map size is everything, everything else can be modded in.

QDUB89 wrote: You want a completely new map or at least a modded one, then you take up programming/coding and do it yourself. A lot of people don't understand how daunting coding can really be. Some mods are made for years, released, and then improved for the next 5 years and can still have numerous bugs/glitches that sometimes even a team of modders don't understand why it's not working properly.

That and the fact that you are talking about, essentially, creating a new map (or modding the original one) takes a lot of room; not a lot of people want to take such a task of extending the map, let-alone the fact that now you have to retexture everything to blend in smoothly, code in hills, NPCs, building, quests, new lore, so on and so forth. You're talking about a crap ton of code. The "Tropical Skyrim" mod (for Skyrim, no duh) alone took at least a year to make (was release a year and a half after skyrim) and that is just a simple layer of code on top of the skyrim map, not actually coding the map to look/behave tropical; I can be standing in the middle of a desert and still get a SNOW storm. Physically extending the map would take YEARS and you're not even guaranteed it will work.

Im not on about extending the map..thats the point, i want the map to be so big in the first place it doesn't need extending!!

Then it can be filled or altered by mini mods thereafter.

The problem with SKYrim and Fallout was the maps were so small, it was familiar from a dew hours in and mods never changed that.

[DoctorE3]

In response to post #25833964.

Twilightwolf4 wrote: My hope is that Fallout4 takes place retroactively before the first Fallout

Would be nice to see how the world fell so far

Honestly not much happened before then. There were mostly black rain for the first years following the bombs, and afew vaults opened and some groups formed. Literally nothing interesting happened at the time except for some brotherhood and enclave stuff. i'd much rather see history in its making than experience what I've already been told is pretty boring.

[ReMusicalRemix]

Let me be honest: the ONLY thing i care right now is that AlChestBreach moves to boston with tha basic crew ;-) includes Steve, Jerry McGoulberry, Mr.Cuddlesworth, Ballarms and Janet xD #PleaseStandBy

[Loveblanket]

In response to post #25834169. #25841134, #25847609 are all replies on the same post.

Poacher886 wrote: I just cant stress enough how important the map size is to me. Skyrim / Fallout only became good / great games after approx 100 mods, the modders can incorporate just about everything from weapons to graphics to quests to buildings to complete overhauls.

But modders cant / dont / wont, increase the map size. Both Skyrim and especially fallout had tiny maps...a few sessions and you had it covered, a few more and you could tell the location from a screenshot, you wer neve more than a minutes walk from one of the two main roads in NV, you could never really get lost in any kind of wasteland, both games were limited by the small size and thus scope.

Now if we had a map 4x skyrim you then have a playground that with mods could go for years or certainly a long time before it became familiar....modders will fill the gaps in the games issues and make it a better game, you could have a least some semblance of a waste land which was not possible in FNV or any kind of forest in Skyrim etc.

The map size is everything, everything else can be modded in.

QDUB89 wrote: You want a completely new map or at least a modded one, then you take up programming/coding and do it yourself. A lot of people don't understand how daunting coding can really be. Some mods are made for years, released, and then improved for the next 5 years and can still have numerous bugs/glitches that sometimes even a team of modders don't understand why it's not working properly.

That and the fact that you are talking about, essentially, creating a new map (or modding the original one) takes a lot of room; not a lot of people want to take such a task of extending the map, let-alone the fact that now you have to retexture everything to blend in smoothly, code in hills, NPCs, building, quests, new lore, so on and so forth. You're talking about a crap ton of code. The "Tropical Skyrim" mod (for Skyrim, no duh) alone took at least a year to make (was release a year and a half after skyrim) and that is just a simple layer of code on top of the skyrim map, not actually coding the map to look/behave tropical; I can be standing in the middle of a desert and still get a SNOW storm. Physically extending the map would take YEARS and you're not even guaranteed it will work.

Poacher886 wrote: Im not on about extending the map..thats the point, i want the map to be so big in the first place it doesn't need extending!!

Then it can be filled or altered by mini mods thereafter.

The problem with SKYrim and Fallout was the maps were so small, it was familiar from a dew hours in and mods never changed that.

There are technical limitations that had to be considered. Remember that these were all last gen games, or even the gen before that. It is easy to say you want a bigger map, but I disagree. If there are vehicles, then yes, but I don't want to walk 20 minutes real time just to get a quest reward. Everybody wants bigger maps until they get them. I love Just Cause 2, but I never finished it and I bet I never saw more than 1-3 % of the map.

[JoshBadWriter]

The thing I want the most is a speaking player character. I've never been one for role playing in a narrative or inserting yourself in the world or whatever. My favorite games, the ones with a narrative, player choice focus all have speaking characters with names and their own identities. Lee from The Walking Dead, Sheppard from Mass Effect, Geralt from Witcher 3. You can have a narrative that is influenced by the player and still have a main character with their own identity.

 

I take that bit at the end of the trailer as a confirmation that the player character will have a voice. From those three words, it sounds like Troy Baker, but it's hard to tell. I'm just going to say Troy Baker anyway because of course it'll be Troy Baker.

 

Does anyone else agree with me? I know a lot of people would flip out at the idea of a speaking player character.

[Loveblanket]

In response to post #25832509. #25832534, #25832994, #25833799, #25833889, #25845579 are all replies on the same post.

digitaltrucker wrote: Do any of you who are actually familiar with the Fallout franchise (or for that matter TES) truly believe that Bethesda would limit the player to a specific gender? That would be such a massive reversal of their traditional gameplay that it's frankly unbelievable. I don't buy it.

frogzilla98 wrote: +11111111111111111111111111

Lisnpuppy wrote: I said as everyone can see, "If it is true..." I don't know if it is true yet.

However I have seen big developers take what I felt is a step in the wrong direction. Let us look at Bioware/EA with the Dragon Age games. Each one became less moddable and limited your choices more each game.

If they want to write a game with a specific PC in mind for a story...that is their prerogative. I'm not even saying it CAN'T be good. I just would not be interested in RPGs that limit choice and ignore what has been happening in gaming. Women are gamers. It is impossible to deny that the 18-30 demographic white male gamer is no longer completely accurate.

The writing of the game, how good the game is, how well-done and bug-free *cough* a game is made is obviously the most important thing. But you can have all these things and more and give gamers a choice when making RPGs. After all...it stands for role playing right? Not much of role playing when even the gender option is removed.

I will wait to see what is confirmed. I am not saying I believe things..which again is why I said "IF" it is true. It would not, however, shock me in the least.

Traditionalfire wrote: http://kotaku.com/latest-popular-fallout-4-rumor-sure-seems-like-bs-1709009561

Of course they won't

Traditionalfire wrote: When it comes to character creation, DA: Inquisition has the most options for creating a character out of all the games. You can't choose your intro thing sure but you have a ton of options when it comes to character design.

jim_uk wrote: @digitaltrucker I'm very familiar with the franchise, I've played all of the games, I'm also familiar with Bethesda and their record of removing important things every time they release a game. I really hope that Reddit post is a load of BS but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

I agree with everything Bethesda has removed from their franchises as time has gone on. The lone exception was spell creation and even then, I never used it. Streamlining interfaces and systems is not dumbing down.

[Loveblanket]

In response to post #25848824.

JoshBadWriter wrote:

The thing I want the most is a speaking player character. I've never been one for role playing in a narrative or inserting yourself in the world or whatever. My favorite games, the ones with a narrative, player choice focus all have speaking characters with names and their own identities. Lee from The Walking Dead, Sheppard from Mass Effect, Geralt from Witcher 3. You can have a narrative that is influenced by the player and still have a main character with their own identity.

 

I take that bit at the end of the trailer as a confirmation that the player character will have a voice. From those three words, it sounds like Troy Baker, but it's hard to tell. I'm just going to say Troy Baker anyway because of course it'll be Troy Baker.

 

Does anyone else agree with me? I know a lot of people would flip out at the idea of a speaking player character.

It might be great for the game itself, but it will be a pain for modding when the protagonist suddenly goes silent. I'm personally torn. I've always said that if someone could get the characters of a game like the Witcher series matched with Bethesdas open world, we would have something truly special. And 44 hours into Wither 3, I can tell you that is not it. Good game, but not the instant classic the early reviews made it out to be and I still enjoyed the Elder Scrolls series more. Just my opinion.