Fallout 4

I just don't want a game full of sh!tty glitches.

I want a new engine for Fallout 4 or I am not buying it.chilly-chill

Me too. Fallout 3 and New Vegas were good, but it's time for a completely new game.

[QUOTE="chilly-chill"]I want a new engine for Fallout 4 or I am not buying it.tjricardo089

Me too. Fallout 3 and New Vegas were good, but it's time for a completely new game.

hopefully it'll use the infinity engine again

Engine-wise the most likely choice will be the creation-engine which still holds to much of the old gamebryo imo

Yeah I guess I never really thought too much about it, buta new engine would be a refreshing touch. New Vegas felt like, to me, a worse Fallout 3.

[QUOTE="tjricardo089"]

[QUOTE="chilly-chill"]I want a new engine for Fallout 4 or I am not buying it.rilpas

Me too. Fallout 3 and New Vegas were good, but it's time for a completely new game.

hopefully it'll use the infinity engine again

F3 really set the bar high, so I doubt that F4 could top it (New Vegas sure didn't), but I still want it bad.

give me a co-op Fallout on the Skyrim engine and I will be happy.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="tjricardo089"]

Me too. Fallout 3 and New Vegas were good, but it's time for a completely new game.

ArchonOver

hopefully it'll use the infinity engine again

The extremely horny teenage genius with a mouth that would make a sailor blush.

The hulking super mutant sheriff, who just wants to see things right.

The faithful robot dog.

The scholarly deathclaw searching for knowledge and experience.

The deadbeat fat mechanic who just wants to be left alone.

The ghoul doctor, with a heart of gold, but with an appearance that makes you want to shoot him on sight.

The tribal crazy person who carries the bones of his dead relatives and speaks with them.

The grumpy bartender with a heart condition.

The other robot dog.

Your wife/husband.

Bessie the brahmin.

Ah yes. And who can forget the epic quest for porn magazines?

I never played Fallout 1 and 2, but looking at that screenshot I'm thinking... Why not make a free browser Fallout game along with Fallout 4?:D

give me a co-op Fallout on the Skyrim engine and I will be happy.

JayQproductions

Co-op Fallout?

....

[QUOTE="JayQproductions"]

give me a co-op Fallout on the Skyrim engine and I will be happy.

chilly-chill

wow, that was original. so....why? let me guess "duur co-op would ruin my single player game"

[QUOTE="chilly-chill"][QUOTE="JayQproductions"]

give me a co-op Fallout on the Skyrim engine and I will be happy.

JayQproductions

wow, that was original. so....why? let me guess "duur co-op would ruin my single player game"

Co-op.

..

..

Fallout?

...

..

What?

Why is co-op in fallout bad? you have multiple companions you can have with you through majority of the game, why not allow another person to control the companion?

Why is co-op in fallout bad? you have multiple companions you can have with you through majority of the game, why not allow another person to control the companion?

JayQproductions

[QUOTE="JayQproductions"]

Why is co-op in fallout bad? you have multiple companions you can have with you through majority of the game, why not allow another person to control the companion?

chilly-chill

see, you have no justification on why it couldnt work as a co-op game. drop in drop out co-op would do nothing but add to the game and get people who normally wouldnt touch it to play an amazing game. Also, you could still have your nice single player game to play for days because you'd still have the ability to get the full experience playing by youself while others have a nice co-op game to play for days.

[QUOTE="chilly-chill"][QUOTE="JayQproductions"]

Why is co-op in fallout bad? you have multiple companions you can have with you through majority of the game, why not allow another person to control the companion?

JayQproductions

see, you have no justification on why it couldnt work as a co-op game. drop in drop out co-op would do nothing but add to the game and get people who normally wouldnt touch it to play an amazing game. Also, you could still have your nice single player game to play for days because you'd still have the ability to get the full experience playing by youself while others have a nice co-op game to play for days.

Vats wouldn't work at all either//

I hope they hold off until next gen. Fallout 4 would make a great launch title for the next Xbox or Playstation 4.

If co-op or any type of multiplayer were on fallout, wouldn't it be optional? So whoever wants to play with a friend, eat your heart out. Those who want the single player experience for said days on end, do so. I don't see how that couldn't accommodate either type of player.

F3 really set the bar high, so I doubt that F4 could top it (New Vegas sure didn't), but I still want it bad.

PfizersaurusRex

But New Vegas was a completely superior game. Ill never understand how someone can say F3 was better when it wasn't.

The story, writing, the choices, the dialogue, the world, the variety, the personality, the quests, the gameplay, etc. Every single aspect of of Fallout New Vegas was superior

[QUOTE="PfizersaurusRex"]

F3 really set the bar high, so I doubt that F4 could top it (New Vegas sure didn't), but I still want it bad.

brucecambell

But New Vegas was a completely superior game. Ill never understand how someone can say F3 was better when it wasn't.

The story, writing, the choices, the dialogue, the world, the variety, the personality, the quests, the gameplay, etc. Every single aspect of of Fallout New Vegas was superior

Agreed. I liked Fallout 3 but New Vegas blew it out of the water.

see, you have no justification on why it couldnt work as a co-op game.JayQproductions

• They'dhave to spend some of the budget on implementing it. Money that could've gone towards improvingsingleplayer.
• They'd have to change the game mechanics. How the hell would VATS work if there were two players? Also, chances are that these changes would carry over into the singleplayer.
• They'd probably add in co-op only areas or challenges that you cant get in singleplayer. Or maybe something like Borderlands, where you can only get the best loot if you play on co-op.
• There'd likely be co-op only achievements. Not a big deal to me, but its still a reason against it.

So yeah. Singleplayer only.

If co-op or any type of multiplayer were on fallout, wouldn't it be optional? So whoever wants to play with a friend, eat your heart out. Those who want the single player experience for said days on end, do so. I don't see how that couldn't accommodate either type of player.

Tri-Soft

see, you have no justification on why it couldnt work as a co-op game. drop in drop out co-op would do nothing but add to the game and get people who normally wouldnt touch it to play an amazing game. Also, you could still have your nice single player game to play for days because you'd still have the ability to get the full experience playing by youself while others have a nice co-op game to play for days.JayQproductions

Is there no end to this crap? Aren't there enough co-op FPS games on the market already? This attitude already ruined Mass Effect. Not that it was perfect before, but at least it could be called an RPG. Now it's just another co-op FPS. Why don't you just go play some Call of Fruity co-op and leave our RPGs alone...please.

[QUOTE="JayQproductions"]see, you have no justification on why it couldnt work as a co-op game. drop in drop out co-op would do nothing but add to the game and get people who normally wouldnt touch it to play an amazing game. Also, you could still have your nice single player game to play for days because you'd still have the ability to get the full experience playing by youself while others have a nice co-op game to play for days.norolim

Is there no end to this crap? Aren't there enough co-op FPS games on the market already? This attitude already ruined Mass Effect. Not that it was perfect before, but at least it could be called an RPG. Now it's just another co-op FPS. Why don't you just go play some Call of Fruity co-op and leave our RPGs alone...please.

Oh, you're one of them.

Is Mass Effect a co-op FPs? Maybe that feature is on the limited edition.

[QUOTE="PfizersaurusRex"]

F3 really set the bar high, so I doubt that F4 could top it (New Vegas sure didn't), but I still want it bad.

brucecambell

But New Vegas was a completely superior game. Ill never understand how someone can say F3 was better when it wasn't.

The story, writing, the choices, the dialogue, the world, the variety, the personality, the quests, the gameplay, etc. Every single aspect of of Fallout New Vegas was superior

New Vegas may be a better game in certain aspects, it's bigger, there's more choices and some technical things are improved, but I think it's just shallow compared to F3, I never cared for my character or other people I met, and there were no "wow" moments like when I first saw Megaton. It's kinda like The Matrix vs The Matrix 2 and 3.

[QUOTE="PfizersaurusRex"]

F3 really set the bar high, so I doubt that F4 could top it (New Vegas sure didn't), but I still want it bad.

brucecambell

But New Vegas was a completely superior game. Ill never understand how someone can say F3 was better when it wasn't.

The story, writing, the choices, the dialogue, the world, the variety, the personality, the quests, the gameplay, etc. Every single aspect of of Fallout New Vegas was superior

Have to disagree with you there. It was a good game but by the time i played it, i was really tired of how badly made it was in terms of glitches.

Oh, you're one of them.

Is Mass Effect a co-op FPs? Maybe that feature is on the limited edition.Ilovegames1992

Oh, don't give me that "your're one of them" rubbish. You have to try harder to provoke a fight ;). And, yes. ME3 is an action game with co-op. But you are right, it's not an FPS; it's a TPS. And ME2 was not an RPG either. It just had RPG elements.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]Oh, you're one of them.

Is Mass Effect a co-op FPs? Maybe that feature is on the limited edition.norolim

Oh, don't give me that "your're one of them" rubbish. You have to try harder to provoke a fight ;). And, yes. ME3 is an action game with co-op. But you are right, it's not an FPS; it's a TPS. And ME2 was not an RPG either. It just had RPG elements.

No, it was a role playing game with TPS elements.

But we could do this all day couldn't we.

But i am against co-op in ME3.

No, it was a role playing game with TPS elements.

But we could do this all day couldn't we.

But i am against co-op in ME3.

Ilovegames1992

We probably could. I gave some of the reasons I believe ME is not an RPG (except maybe for ME1) in another thread. Here is a quote for you, if you are interested:

I'm not saying there is absolutely no character progression or customisation in ME2. It's there, but has been stripped-down to the absloute minimum. You can customise your armour (provided you buy DLCs) but only for the main character. The rest of the squad wear the same pants for the whole game (imagine the stench on Normandy by the time they get ready to jump throught Omega 4), unless of course you buy some DLCs (and even then it's just colours you change). If you use a sniper rifle as your main weapon you have 3 models to choose from...THREE...unles you buy a DLC, in which case you get...a fourth one. How is that RPG? Even the first Crisis had better weapon customisation than ME2. I'm sorry mate, but you are wrong when claiming that character progression through story and dialogue based encounters is the sole essence of RPGs. Being able to customise your party's gear, to customise and develop characters (and no, it doesn't have to be the STR, DEX, WIS forluma) with enough freedom so that it actually affects gameplay is equally important for any good genuine RPG. Same with loot and to a lesser extent tactical combat. Let's see what ME2 has to offer: (I've already covered gear customisation) there are character skills but the whole concept is so dumbed down, that you are basically left with not more than 2 development paths to follow after you choose your character class (and that's talking about the main character, beacuse in case of the rest of the squad you are lucky if you get 2 ways to develop them; in most cases you just add points as they "progress" without giving it too much thought). Loot? Sorry I asked...there is practically no loot in ME2.

You are also wrong when talking about the blueprint. ME2 was not built on an RPG base. In it's core the game is an FPS. Just take a look at the mission structure which is basically what we get in any standard FPS. Most areas you visit in ME2 are nothing more than your typical FPS levels/maps. There is very little exploration freedom (another feature important for any RPG) in the game. You can travel back to some areas, but all those where action takes place are single visit affairs. I could go on enumerating some more or less obvious features of FPS genre at the core of ME2, but for the sake of brevity I'll just remind you that the game was built on Unreal Engine 3.

So as I mentioned in the post you quoted, RPG alements are present in ME2, but they are there only to spice up the otherwise action oriented gameplay and be able to market and sell the game not only to the FPS loving masses but also to the RPG gamers (both the endangered classic RPG fans and the new engineered species rapidly growing in numbers)norolim

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

No, it was a role playing game with TPS elements.

But we could do this all day couldn't we.

But i am against co-op in ME3.

norolim

We probably could. I gave some of the reasons I believe ME is not an RPG (except maybe for ME1) in another thread. Here is a quote for you, if you are interested:

I'm not saying there is absolutely no character progression or customisation in ME2. It's there, but has been stripped-down to the absloute minimum. You can customise your armour (provided you buy DLCs) but only for the main character. The rest of the squad wear the same pants for the whole game (imagine the stench on Normandy by the time they get ready to jump throught Omega 4), unless of course you buy some DLCs (and even then it's just colours you change). If you use a sniper rifle as your main weapon you have 3 models to choose from...THREE...unles you buy a DLC, in which case you get...a fourth one. How is that RPG? Even the first Crisis had better weapon customisation than ME2. I'm sorry mate, but you are wrong when claiming that character progression through story and dialogue based encounters is the sole essence of RPGs. Being able to customise your party's gear, to customise and develop characters (and no, it doesn't have to be the STR, DEX, WIS forluma) with enough freedom so that it actually affects gameplay is equally important for any good genuine RPG. Same with loot and to a lesser extent tactical combat. Let's see what ME2 has to offer: (I've already covered gear customisation) there are character skills but the whole concept is so dumbed down, that you are basically left with not more than 2 development paths to follow after you choose your character class (and that's talking about the main character, beacuse in case of the rest of the squad you are lucky if you get 2 ways to develop them; in most cases you just add points as they "progress" without giving it too much thought). Loot? Sorry I asked...there is practically no loot in ME2.

You are also wrong when talking about the blueprint. ME2 was not built on an RPG base. In it's core the game is an FPS. Just take a look at the mission structure which is basically what we get in any standard FPS. Most areas you visit in ME2 are nothing more than your typical FPS levels/maps. There is very little exploration freedom (another feature important for any RPG) in the game. You can travel back to some areas, but all those where action takes place are single visit affairs. I could go on enumerating some more or less obvious features of FPS genre at the core of ME2, but for the sake of brevity I'll just remind you that the game was built on Unreal Engine 3.

So as I mentioned in the post you quoted, RPG alements are present in ME2, but they are there only to spice up the otherwise action oriented gameplay and be able to market and sell the game not only to the FPS loving masses but also to the RPG gamers (both the endangered classic RPG fans and the new engineered species rapidly growing in numbers)norolim

IU guess it all depends on how much RPG you need in a game to consider it RPG. Which is purely subjective i think. I wouldn't even disagree that it is slightly more casual. Which it is, and i think it works just as well because the whole idea of the game to me is to experience the world and the story seamlessly. You don't want to get bogged down in convoluted RPG stuff when you are doing that all the time. In my opinion anyway.

[QUOTE="Tri-Soft"]

If co-op or any type of multiplayer were on fallout, wouldn't it be optional? So whoever wants to play with a friend, eat your heart out. Those who want the single player experience for said days on end, do so. I don't see how that couldn't accommodate either type of player.

chilly-chill

No Fallout. I'd rather they make another Elder Scrolls Game!! Elder Scrols VI: Elsewhere

The shooting isn't good enough to eliminate VATS, and I wouldn't play without it on anyways. And I completely agree with other posters, cramming multiplayer where multiplayer doesn't belong is ruining a lot of games, because the single player just becomes a tutorial for multiplayer.

I would like to see a return to Fallout 2 gameplay with current gen tech, it would be awesome.

give me a co-op Fallout on the Skyrim engine and I will be happy.

JayQproductions

Wasn't there a forest are in Fallout 3. I think there was, or my memory is failing me.

Aye, there was, one created by a Ghoul character from Fallout 1 and2 called Harold ended up becoming a God of sorts to a group who tried to maintain the forest that he had inadvertently created and help it survive - http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Oasis

Originally, I wasn't going to post in this thread out of spite, but I have a feeling people intentionally ignore me.

[QUOTE="Smokescreened84"]The DC wastelands were hit a lot harder than the locations of Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas. Washington DC and the surrounding land was almost completely destroyed in that game's universe, understandable really when you consider that it is the capital of the US in real life and it was the capital of the US in that game universe. So the Chinese, in that game universe, wanted to wipe out as much of the capital as possible, which in many ways they managed to do considering what was left afterwards. ArchonOver

I'm no expert in Fallout lore but just think of it that way...

In our world, there exist rural areas within developed countries. For various reasons. Again, I'm no expert in that field but I can think of a few. City dynamics, for one. For agricultural purposes. Now, these reasons don't really apply to a post-apocalyptic wasteland so let's move on to real-world under-developed countries to attempt to explain it. Why are they in such a state? I can think of a few causes that can besensiblyapplied to the Fallout universe. For instance nations that are established on dry, arid lands tend to lag behind those that are blessed with fertile grounds. This is a very important factor, both in real-world and in-game. Agriculture is crucial and more so in a world where society is practically reset to the dark ages. Substitute the heat with radiation.

As well, the world of Fallout has sustained heavy casualties (The highest ever recorded) from the nuclear exchange. That and society as a whole probably stagnated during the vast majority of the 200 year period due to the huge amounts of radioactive fallout. So, considering the low population count and long years of cultural stagnation, having dangerous areas like Washington depicted as mere villages when compared to New Vegas isn't really surprising IMO. Society isn't really in dire need of restorong every single state to former glory.I'm guessing they aim at surveying the majority of areas and move on if the risks outweigh the benefits. That's pretty much what I've come up anyway to explain the situation. It's one of the reasons I love Fallout. It shows you how devastating nuclear attacks are and how it pretty much ruins the life of any living thing on the planet but it also paints a picture that is sci-fi in that no one really knows how fast society would rebuild, if at all. I'm rather convinced that society would be progressing at the slowest rate ever witnessed in human history because a large chunk of the resources once available was nuked along the rest of the planet.