So why aren't Fallout-like RPG games happing in Sim City-like sandboxes? You know, with very elaborate AI-systems simulating every aspect of post-nuclear life? And allowing the player to have similar impact on the world. Not on a macro level like in a city builder game, but by being a citizen of such a complex simulation? Also - why can't we shape the environments like that either? Digging ditches, burning down houses, blowing craters into the ground, tunneling through a mountain?
So we can drag a cheesewheel up a mountain and roll it down its flank. Big whoop! Where is the more ambitious Fallout game of the future? Still firmely in the future. I guess 'til then, more of the same old gamebryo/creation engine shenannigans will do, but I am kinda disappointed that it just seems like more of the same, maybe a tiny bit better, rather than something more ambitious as described above.
Pretty much. All someone needs to do is merge an open world game with some high level strategic and macro/micro economic layers.
I'd like to see GTA merged with the Sims and Sim City.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
So why aren't Fallout-like RPG games happing in Sim City-like sandboxes? You know, with very elaborate AI-systems simulating every aspect of post-nuclear life? And allowing the player to have similar impact on the world. Not on a macro level like in a city builder game, but by being a citizen of such a complex simulation? Also - why can't we shape the environments like that either? Digging ditches, burning down houses, blowing craters into the ground, tunneling through a mountain?
So we can drag a cheesewheel up a mountain and roll it down its flank. Big whoop! Where is the more ambitious Fallout game of the future? Still firmely in the future. I guess 'til then, more of the same old gamebryo/creation engine shenannigans will do, but I am kinda disappointed that it just seems like more of the same, maybe a tiny bit better, rather than something more ambitious as described above.
You will be happy with e3 then, if you want more effect on the world.
You know the pc could be one of the first androids before the war, a model so old and outdated by the time you resurface the members of the institute dont recognize you as on and their methods of control, I'm assuming they have some, dont work. You go the whole game not knowing you're an android until drama llama reveal.
I think my issue with cars or vehicles is that very few open world games do the right, and in fall out the idea of just driving around is not what brings me in the door. I want smaller more detailed environments, not spread out empty wasteland with the occasional interesting thing.
I love riding around on Roach in Witcher 3, seeing a landmark in the distance, going there, and discovering some random event, quest, treasure, monsternest, what have you. A world large and open enough to allow for a *Mounts*-mechanic can make a gameworld feel more *real life full scale*, rather than presenting some oddly condensed reality, like how Bethesda's games feel.
So why aren't Fallout-like RPG games happing in Sim City-like sandboxes? You know, with very elaborate AI-systems simulating every aspect of post-nuclear life? And allowing the player to have similar impact on the world. Not on a macro level like in a city builder game, but by being a citizen of such a complex simulation? Also - why can't we shape the environments like that either? Digging ditches, burning down houses, blowing craters into the ground, tunneling through a mountain?
So we can drag a cheesewheel up a mountain and roll it down its flank. Big whoop! Where is the more ambitious Fallout game of the future? Still firmely in the future. I guess 'til then, more of the same old gamebryo/creation engine shenannigans will do, but I am kinda disappointed that it just seems like more of the same, maybe a tiny bit better, rather than something more ambitious as described above.
You will be happy with e3 then, if you want more effect on the world.
Edit: Geth knows.....
What might you be referring to? Do tell!
BranniganSepp on
+1
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
edited June 2015
Game world is giving me a similar feeling to Fallout 3 where it was kind of a hobo's world and you would probably just be smashing into everything because the map was designed with walking distance in mind.
I wouldn't use vehicles myself anyway. I went completely on foot in Skyrim and Oblivion aswell.
So why aren't Fallout-like RPG games happing in Sim City-like sandboxes? You know, with very elaborate AI-systems simulating every aspect of post-nuclear life? And allowing the player to have similar impact on the world. Not on a macro level like in a city builder game, but by being a citizen of such a complex simulation? Also - why can't we shape the environments like that either? Digging ditches, burning down houses, blowing craters into the ground, tunneling through a mountain?
So we can drag a cheesewheel up a mountain and roll it down its flank. Big whoop! Where is the more ambitious Fallout game of the future? Still firmely in the future. I guess 'til then, more of the same old gamebryo/creation engine shenannigans will do, but I am kinda disappointed that it just seems like more of the same, maybe a tiny bit better, rather than something more ambitious as described above.
You will be happy with e3 then, if you want more effect on the world.
Can we please stop this nudge nudge wink wink bullshit? You've got a leak, we get it.
The dude wanted to know so I told him. How else am I supposed to determine who wants to be spoiled, aside from just posting it and getting yelled at by people who didn't want to find out that way? This can't possibly be bothering you. If it is I'd hate to see you in an actual emergency.
Edit: if you had any idea how many pm's I am getting you would know my struggle between keeping it quasi secret and letting my friend's on the PA forums know.
Not to mention I have a responsibility to not spoil things for people who want to be surprised. Thats why I'm doing it this way. It's also easier to deny if theres nothing public to copy and paste.
So why aren't Fallout-like RPG games happing in Sim City-like sandboxes? You know, with very elaborate AI-systems simulating every aspect of post-nuclear life? And allowing the player to have similar impact on the world. Not on a macro level like in a city builder game, but by being a citizen of such a complex simulation? Also - why can't we shape the environments like that either? Digging ditches, burning down houses, blowing craters into the ground, tunneling through a mountain?
So we can drag a cheesewheel up a mountain and roll it down its flank. Big whoop! Where is the more ambitious Fallout game of the future? Still firmely in the future. I guess 'til then, more of the same old gamebryo/creation engine shenannigans will do, but I am kinda disappointed that it just seems like more of the same, maybe a tiny bit better, rather than something more ambitious as described above.
You will be happy with e3 then, if you want more effect on the world.
Edit: Geth knows.....
What might you be referring to? Do tell!
Pm sent
If true, that's more like WoW's garrison system, rather than the whole game world being as deeply simulated and dynamic as it would be in a Sim City game. Essentially what you're describing is just like what your private appartement in previous Fallout games were, just a bit larger in scale. More flash than substance really.
BranniganSepp on
0
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
So why aren't Fallout-like RPG games happing in Sim City-like sandboxes? You know, with very elaborate AI-systems simulating every aspect of post-nuclear life? And allowing the player to have similar impact on the world. Not on a macro level like in a city builder game, but by being a citizen of such a complex simulation? Also - why can't we shape the environments like that either? Digging ditches, burning down houses, blowing craters into the ground, tunneling through a mountain?
So we can drag a cheesewheel up a mountain and roll it down its flank. Big whoop! Where is the more ambitious Fallout game of the future? Still firmely in the future. I guess 'til then, more of the same old gamebryo/creation engine shenannigans will do, but I am kinda disappointed that it just seems like more of the same, maybe a tiny bit better, rather than something more ambitious as described above.
You will be happy with e3 then, if you want more effect on the world.
Edit: Geth knows.....
What might you be referring to? Do tell!
Pm sent
If true, that's more like WoW's garrison system, rather than the whole game world being as deeply simulated and dynamic as it would be in a Sim City game. Essentially what you're describing is just like what your private appartement in previous Fallout games were, just a bit larger in scale. More flash than substance really.
The only description I got was that it's like an expanded version of that one Skyrim dlc that had the word heart in it.
And maybe it's just me, but it kind of looks like the game happens a relatively short time after the world gets bombed to shit. It always seemed kind of silly that the world couldn't get its shit together even 200 years after the war.
Living in CA and going to the "wilderness" out here kinda spoils you. Only have like one dangerous critter per group and those are not very deadly. Rattlesnake, it'll suck but you'll live if you get to a hospital that day and you have to basically step on one for it to bite. Black widow, mostly just gonna feel like shit for as while. Cougar might get ya but really only if you're smallish, even then you'll prolly make it if anyone else is nearby to yell at it. Basically the forests of California are natures Disneyland.
You've never been to Switzerland then. You could dip your whole body in a vat of delicious honey, cover youself in blood, and sleep naked in the woods all year long, and no harm would befall you from Mother Nature. Everything that could harm a human being has long since been eradicated. That's pretty much true for all of Western Europe. A handful of bears and wolves do still exist in some places, but as soon as they venture anywhere near civilization, they'll be preventively shot before long.
I can't imagine how places like India manage to keep live Tigers around, given that hundreds of people die every year to them. You'd get one kid eaten by a tiger around here, all of tigerkind would go extinct in a forthnight. Well, maybe the modern pussified/enlightend Europeans of today would not act so rashly, or so Europeans would like to think at least. I'd say, if we had animals like Kobras and Trapdoor Spiders in Europe, we'd kill 'em all soon enough, even today. You can bet your ass there were dangerous animals in Western Europe at some point, beyond bears and wolves. Spiders and snakes and big cats and what have you. They're all dead now. It's not so bad really, not having to worry a Tiger will have you for lunch while you work the field.
P.S. What's this tangent about anyways?
That sounds fucking awful. Not something to brag about
aspect, someone already mentioned that. Everyone's been posting that dumb article from 11 months ago constantly so why not discuss it?
This is why I keep wink wink nudge nudging, because it's become impossible to tell the legit info from the myriad of leakers and hoaxers. It takes constant seperating of the the real from the fake to mantain any kind of cohesive accounting of the information so far. Sorry if you feel like I'm rubbing it in your face spaffy, I'm not. I'm just trying to make sure that everyone who wants to know, knows. I don't want to just put it in spoilers and have someone mindlessly click on it and get e3 ruined for them.
If you have a better way of going about it I'd like to hear it, Spaffy. I'm serious. Because this way is exhausting. I'm not doing it for attention. If I were I'd take my leak to polygon or Kotaku, not the PA forums.
Living in CA and going to the "wilderness" out here kinda spoils you. Only have like one dangerous critter per group and those are not very deadly. Rattlesnake, it'll suck but you'll live if you get to a hospital that day and you have to basically step on one for it to bite. Black widow, mostly just gonna feel like shit for as while. Cougar might get ya but really only if you're smallish, even then you'll prolly make it if anyone else is nearby to yell at it. Basically the forests of California are natures Disneyland.
You've never been to Switzerland then. You could dip your whole body in a vat of delicious honey, cover youself in blood, and sleep naked in the woods all year long, and no harm would befall you from Mother Nature. Everything that could harm a human being has long since been eradicated. That's pretty much true for all of Western Europe. A handful of bears and wolves do still exist in some places, but as soon as they venture anywhere near civilization, they'll be preventively shot before long.
I can't imagine how places like India manage to keep live Tigers around, given that hundreds of people die every year to them. You'd get one kid eaten by a tiger around here, all of tigerkind would go extinct in a forthnight. Well, maybe the modern pussified/enlightend Europeans of today would not act so rashly, or so Europeans would like to think at least. I'd say, if we had animals like Kobras and Trapdoor Spiders in Europe, we'd kill 'em all soon enough, even today. You can bet your ass there were dangerous animals in Western Europe at some point, beyond bears and wolves. Spiders and snakes and big cats and what have you. They're all dead now. It's not so bad really, not having to worry a Tiger will have you for lunch while you work the field.
P.S. What's this tangent about anyways?
That sounds fucking awful. Not something to brag about
It's not like there are wild Bison herds roaming the plains in America either. Europe just had a head start. I'm quite certain you'll lose most of your more demanding larger-size species to habitat loss soon enough, outside of nature reserves. It's inevitable.
Also - fuck trap door spiders and kobras. Seriously.
And maybe it's just me, but it kind of looks like the game happens a relatively short time after the world gets bombed to shit. It always seemed kind of silly that the world couldn't get its shit together even 200 years after the war.
Pretty sure the game will take place post the events of F3, the prior to the bomb scenes are most likely the character creator.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
And I'm replaying FO3 and noticing things to nitpick/hope they've changed. Like why do enemies always shrug off torso and head injuries like mosquito bites? Meanwhile you have to deal with the fuzzy concussion any time your noggin takes a floggin
+11
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
Going to be fun seeing people remaking Fallout 3 and New Vegas in this skywind/morroblivion style.
And maybe it's just me, but it kind of looks like the game happens a relatively short time after the world gets bombed to shit. It always seemed kind of silly that the world couldn't get its shit together even 200 years after the war.
Pretty sure the game will take place post the events of F3, the prior to the bomb scenes are most likely the character creator.
But doesn't F3 take place 200 years after the bomb?
Anyway, I'd be all for a Fallout that took place, say, 20 years after the bomb, and this looks like it.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
+1
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
Going to be fun seeing people remaking Fallout 3 and New Vegas in this skywind/morroblivion style.
It would certainly make 3 easier navigate, I ran into a lot of imaginary walls in 3 and muddled textures made it nearly impossible to navigate without using the shit out of the map.
And maybe it's just me, but it kind of looks like the game happens a relatively short time after the world gets bombed to shit. It always seemed kind of silly that the world couldn't get its shit together even 200 years after the war.
Pretty sure the game will take place post the events of F3, the prior to the bomb scenes are most likely the character creator.
But doesn't F3 take place 200 years after the bomb?
Anyway, I'd be all for a Fallout that took place, say, 20 years after the bomb, and this looks like it.
The kotaku article which got a lot of things right despite being two years old (like Boston, talking PC, his look and him having a wife and infant) seems to indicate you could be a man out of time. As in you might have spent all of your time in the vault frozen until hundreds of years later. Potentially you're a prewar human in the present Fallout world.
Living in CA and going to the "wilderness" out here kinda spoils you. Only have like one dangerous critter per group and those are not very deadly. Rattlesnake, it'll suck but you'll live if you get to a hospital that day and you have to basically step on one for it to bite. Black widow, mostly just gonna feel like shit for as while. Cougar might get ya but really only if you're smallish, even then you'll prolly make it if anyone else is nearby to yell at it. Basically the forests of California are natures Disneyland.
You've never been to Switzerland then. You could dip your whole body in a vat of delicious honey, cover youself in blood, and sleep naked in the woods all year long, and no harm would befall you from Mother Nature. Everything that could harm a human being has long since been eradicated. That's pretty much true for all of Western Europe. A handful of bears and wolves do still exist in some places, but as soon as they venture anywhere near civilization, they'll be preventively shot before long.
I can't imagine how places like India manage to keep live Tigers around, given that hundreds of people die every year to them. You'd get one kid eaten by a tiger around here, all of tigerkind would go extinct in a forthnight. Well, maybe the modern pussified/enlightend Europeans of today would not act so rashly, or so Europeans would like to think at least. I'd say, if we had animals like Kobras and Trapdoor Spiders in Europe, we'd kill 'em all soon enough, even today. You can bet your ass there were dangerous animals in Western Europe at some point, beyond bears and wolves. Spiders and snakes and big cats and what have you. They're all dead now. It's not so bad really, not having to worry a Tiger will have you for lunch while you work the field.
P.S. What's this tangent about anyways?
That sounds fucking awful. Not something to brag about
It's not like there are wild Bison herds roaming the plains in America either. Europe just had a head start. I'm quite certain you'll lose most of your more demanding larger-size species to habitat loss soon enough, outside of nature reserves. It's inevitable.
Also - fuck trap door spiders and kobras. Seriously.
As for the Fallout world, the lack of progress never bothered me that much. While it does have that same sense of weirdly compressed time you find in a lot of fantasy games, especially in terms of how things have or have not degraded in the century+ since the war, the idea that between the radiation, mutants, killer robots, raiders and other post-apocalyptic bullshit, civilization has struggled to advance past the small, fortified settlement stage makes sense. The land simply cannot support enough humans to rebuild civilization.
This is also one of the clearest through-lines in the franchise. By destroying threats like the super mutants and the Enclave, who were making sure to eliminate any threat (i.e. settlement) that got too large, the player characters created rippling effects that allowed for civilization to rebuild itself. This is especially clear in Fallout 3, where the character literally brings fresh water to the wasteland.
+3
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
One big thing I want to see are the various populated areas to have enough people in them to feel right.
Can't wait to see what they show at e3
This is more important to me than graphics
Agreed.
There are times in Fallout 3, NV and Skyrim where they really needed it bad and the lack of it really hurt the stories they were trying to tell.
The war in Skyrim and the civil war quests felt rather small as a result of the constraints as did having to wall off several sections of The Strip in New Vegas and even then only having a few people in each area.
Living in CA and going to the "wilderness" out here kinda spoils you. Only have like one dangerous critter per group and those are not very deadly. Rattlesnake, it'll suck but you'll live if you get to a hospital that day and you have to basically step on one for it to bite. Black widow, mostly just gonna feel like shit for as while. Cougar might get ya but really only if you're smallish, even then you'll prolly make it if anyone else is nearby to yell at it. Basically the forests of California are natures Disneyland.
You've never been to Switzerland then. You could dip your whole body in a vat of delicious honey, cover youself in blood, and sleep naked in the woods all year long, and no harm would befall you from Mother Nature. Everything that could harm a human being has long since been eradicated. That's pretty much true for all of Western Europe. A handful of bears and wolves do still exist in some places, but as soon as they venture anywhere near civilization, they'll be preventively shot before long.
I can't imagine how places like India manage to keep live Tigers around, given that hundreds of people die every year to them. You'd get one kid eaten by a tiger around here, all of tigerkind would go extinct in a forthnight. Well, maybe the modern pussified/enlightend Europeans of today would not act so rashly, or so Europeans would like to think at least. I'd say, if we had animals like Kobras and Trapdoor Spiders in Europe, we'd kill 'em all soon enough, even today. You can bet your ass there were dangerous animals in Western Europe at some point, beyond bears and wolves. Spiders and snakes and big cats and what have you. They're all dead now. It's not so bad really, not having to worry a Tiger will have you for lunch while you work the field.
P.S. What's this tangent about anyways?
That sounds fucking awful. Not something to brag about
It's not like there are wild Bison herds roaming the plains in America either. Europe just had a head start. I'm quite certain you'll lose most of your more demanding larger-size species to habitat loss soon enough, outside of nature reserves. It's inevitable.
Also - fuck trap door spiders and kobras. Seriously.
As for the Fallout world, the lack of progress never bothered me that much. While it does have that same sense of weirdly compressed time you find in a lot of fantasy games, especially in terms of how things have or have not degraded in the century+ since the war, the idea that between the radiation, mutants, killer robots, raiders and other post-apocalyptic bullshit, civilization has struggled to advance past the small, fortified settlement stage makes sense. The land simply cannot support enough humans to rebuild civilization.
This is also one of the clearest through-lines in the franchise. By destroying threats like the super mutants and the Enclave, who were making sure to eliminate any threat (i.e. settlement) that got too large, the player characters created rippling effects that allowed for civilization to rebuild itself. This is especially clear in Fallout 3, where the character literally brings fresh water to the wasteland.
Living in CA and going to the "wilderness" out here kinda spoils you. Only have like one dangerous critter per group and those are not very deadly. Rattlesnake, it'll suck but you'll live if you get to a hospital that day and you have to basically step on one for it to bite. Black widow, mostly just gonna feel like shit for as while. Cougar might get ya but really only if you're smallish, even then you'll prolly make it if anyone else is nearby to yell at it. Basically the forests of California are natures Disneyland.
You've never been to Switzerland then. You could dip your whole body in a vat of delicious honey, cover youself in blood, and sleep naked in the woods all year long, and no harm would befall you from Mother Nature. Everything that could harm a human being has long since been eradicated. That's pretty much true for all of Western Europe. A handful of bears and wolves do still exist in some places, but as soon as they venture anywhere near civilization, they'll be preventively shot before long.
I can't imagine how places like India manage to keep live Tigers around, given that hundreds of people die every year to them. You'd get one kid eaten by a tiger around here, all of tigerkind would go extinct in a forthnight. Well, maybe the modern pussified/enlightend Europeans of today would not act so rashly, or so Europeans would like to think at least. I'd say, if we had animals like Kobras and Trapdoor Spiders in Europe, we'd kill 'em all soon enough, even today. You can bet your ass there were dangerous animals in Western Europe at some point, beyond bears and wolves. Spiders and snakes and big cats and what have you. They're all dead now. It's not so bad really, not having to worry a Tiger will have you for lunch while you work the field.
P.S. What's this tangent about anyways?
That sounds fucking awful. Not something to brag about
It's not like there are wild Bison herds roaming the plains in America either. Europe just had a head start. I'm quite certain you'll lose most of your more demanding larger-size species to habitat loss soon enough, outside of nature reserves. It's inevitable.
Also - fuck trap door spiders and kobras. Seriously.
As for the Fallout world, the lack of progress never bothered me that much. While it does have that same sense of weirdly compressed time you find in a lot of fantasy games, especially in terms of how things have or have not degraded in the century+ since the war, the idea that between the radiation, mutants, killer robots, raiders and other post-apocalyptic bullshit, civilization has struggled to advance past the small, fortified settlement stage makes sense. The land simply cannot support enough humans to rebuild civilization.
This is also one of the clearest through-lines in the franchise. By destroying threats like the super mutants and the Enclave, who were making sure to eliminate any threat (i.e. settlement) that got too large, the player characters created rippling effects that allowed for civilization to rebuild itself. This is especially clear in Fallout 3, where the character literally brings fresh water to the wasteland.
Aren't the brahmin supposed to be bison-like?
I always took them more as mutated cows.
One thing that occurs to me is that a game set in Mass. could end up having mutated moose. Talk about things that could kill a deathclaw in their present state.
+5
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
Living in CA and going to the "wilderness" out here kinda spoils you. Only have like one dangerous critter per group and those are not very deadly. Rattlesnake, it'll suck but you'll live if you get to a hospital that day and you have to basically step on one for it to bite. Black widow, mostly just gonna feel like shit for as while. Cougar might get ya but really only if you're smallish, even then you'll prolly make it if anyone else is nearby to yell at it. Basically the forests of California are natures Disneyland.
You've never been to Switzerland then. You could dip your whole body in a vat of delicious honey, cover youself in blood, and sleep naked in the woods all year long, and no harm would befall you from Mother Nature. Everything that could harm a human being has long since been eradicated. That's pretty much true for all of Western Europe. A handful of bears and wolves do still exist in some places, but as soon as they venture anywhere near civilization, they'll be preventively shot before long.
I can't imagine how places like India manage to keep live Tigers around, given that hundreds of people die every year to them. You'd get one kid eaten by a tiger around here, all of tigerkind would go extinct in a forthnight. Well, maybe the modern pussified/enlightend Europeans of today would not act so rashly, or so Europeans would like to think at least. I'd say, if we had animals like Kobras and Trapdoor Spiders in Europe, we'd kill 'em all soon enough, even today. You can bet your ass there were dangerous animals in Western Europe at some point, beyond bears and wolves. Spiders and snakes and big cats and what have you. They're all dead now. It's not so bad really, not having to worry a Tiger will have you for lunch while you work the field.
P.S. What's this tangent about anyways?
That sounds fucking awful. Not something to brag about
It's not like there are wild Bison herds roaming the plains in America either. Europe just had a head start. I'm quite certain you'll lose most of your more demanding larger-size species to habitat loss soon enough, outside of nature reserves. It's inevitable.
Also - fuck trap door spiders and kobras. Seriously.
As for the Fallout world, the lack of progress never bothered me that much. While it does have that same sense of weirdly compressed time you find in a lot of fantasy games, especially in terms of how things have or have not degraded in the century+ since the war, the idea that between the radiation, mutants, killer robots, raiders and other post-apocalyptic bullshit, civilization has struggled to advance past the small, fortified settlement stage makes sense. The land simply cannot support enough humans to rebuild civilization.
This is also one of the clearest through-lines in the franchise. By destroying threats like the super mutants and the Enclave, who were making sure to eliminate any threat (i.e. settlement) that got too large, the player characters created rippling effects that allowed for civilization to rebuild itself. This is especially clear in Fallout 3, where the character literally brings fresh water to the wasteland.
Aren't the brahmin supposed to be bison-like?
I always took them more as mutated cows.
One thing that occurs to me is that a game set in Mass. could end up having mutated moose. Talk about things that could kill a deathclaw in their present state.
I'm trying to imagine mutated 2 headed antlers. Good god that would be a sight to see.
Edit: its got two heads but it still has to look in the same direction because it's antlers are fused together.
And maybe it's just me, but it kind of looks like the game happens a relatively short time after the world gets bombed to shit. It always seemed kind of silly that the world couldn't get its shit together even 200 years after the war.
Pretty sure the game will take place post the events of F3, the prior to the bomb scenes are most likely the character creator.
But doesn't F3 take place 200 years after the bomb?
Anyway, I'd be all for a Fallout that took place, say, 20 years after the bomb, and this looks like it.
I don't want one right after the bombs, that would mean most of the world is dead and most people are underground. I'd much rather have one where its more western right on the edge of society coming back. Kind of like Defiance's set up.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
Whew, dusted off my 360 copy of New Vegas and picked up where I left off from 3 years ago. I'm not sure which ending I was going for at that point. Looks like I already achieved the Pro-House and NCR endings, but I did that before all the DLC had come out. On this playthrough, I completed all four DLC campaigns, but then just sort of stopped playing. I'll probably go for the Yes Man ending if I decide to finish up this playthrough.
I think I'm weird, but I play games with all sorts of decisions you can make, always make the same decisions. I only see the same ending, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think I'm weird, but I play games with all sorts of decisions you can make, always make the same decisions. I only see the same ending, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
I tend to go paragon even in situations where I wouldn't be so paragon IRL.
I think I'm weird, but I play games with all sorts of decisions you can make, always make the same decisions. I only see the same ending, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
I actually rarely replay games that have multiple endings these days. New Vegas was a bit of an exception for me because I liked it so much. My second playthrough in New Vegas was in hardcore mode, which I didn't particularly enjoy, but it all worked out and I won't be playing the game that way again.
I usually go with the "good" side in games like this, or as close to a good side as you can get.
I think I'm weird, but I play games with all sorts of decisions you can make, always make the same decisions. I only see the same ending, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
I tend to go paragon even in situations where I wouldn't be so paragon IRL.
Yep that's me, its like in these games I want to be light of justice you wouldn't find in the real world. Though I do occasionally kill someone who I just know is a bad guy from a previous play through even though in the game I wouldn't be so sure.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think I'm weird, but I play games with all sorts of decisions you can make, always make the same decisions. I only see the same ending, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
I do the same. Usually, I replay games a year or so after the first playthrough and end up making the same choices as the first time.
Mass Effect is the only series where I tended to play the "nice" and "mean" paths, but that's a combination of the male/female actors being different enough to justify a second playthrough, and ME making the fairly unique design choice of the split being more hardass and diplomat than good and evil.
Phillishere on
+1
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
I think I'm weird, but I play games with all sorts of decisions you can make, always make the same decisions. I only see the same ending, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
Whether I go or bad usually depends on how interesting the universe is.
I didn't like Fable, thought everything was too cheery so I quickly spent my time becoming an absolute monster to make things more interesting.
In Fallout 3 and NV, I played mostly well intentioned on the first runs. Most of my characters after that though tend to lean toward evil or morally questionable. In Skyrim, my first Dragonborn was motivated by revenge and personal gain.
I always play darkside/evil characters. I can't help myself, it's too fun. I've tried a couple 'light-side' runs in various games and get bored after half an hour.
I have it on good authority that boars, wolves, and coyotes are evil things and anyone who feels sympathy towards them should be left alone in the woods with them.
Posts
Pretty much. All someone needs to do is merge an open world game with some high level strategic and macro/micro economic layers.
I'd like to see GTA merged with the Sims and Sim City.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
You will be happy with e3 then, if you want more effect on the world.
Edit: Geth knows.....
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
I love riding around on Roach in Witcher 3, seeing a landmark in the distance, going there, and discovering some random event, quest, treasure, monsternest, what have you. A world large and open enough to allow for a *Mounts*-mechanic can make a gameworld feel more *real life full scale*, rather than presenting some oddly condensed reality, like how Bethesda's games feel.
What might you be referring to? Do tell!
I wouldn't use vehicles myself anyway. I went completely on foot in Skyrim and Oblivion aswell.
Pm sent
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
Steam: adamjnet
The dude wanted to know so I told him. How else am I supposed to determine who wants to be spoiled, aside from just posting it and getting yelled at by people who didn't want to find out that way? This can't possibly be bothering you. If it is I'd hate to see you in an actual emergency.
Edit: if you had any idea how many pm's I am getting you would know my struggle between keeping it quasi secret and letting my friend's on the PA forums know.
Not to mention I have a responsibility to not spoil things for people who want to be surprised. Thats why I'm doing it this way. It's also easier to deny if theres nothing public to copy and paste.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
If true, that's more like WoW's garrison system, rather than the whole game world being as deeply simulated and dynamic as it would be in a Sim City game. Essentially what you're describing is just like what your private appartement in previous Fallout games were, just a bit larger in scale. More flash than substance really.
The only description I got was that it's like an expanded version of that one Skyrim dlc that had the word heart in it.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
And maybe it's just me, but it kind of looks like the game happens a relatively short time after the world gets bombed to shit. It always seemed kind of silly that the world couldn't get its shit together even 200 years after the war.
That sounds fucking awful. Not something to brag about
This is why I keep wink wink nudge nudging, because it's become impossible to tell the legit info from the myriad of leakers and hoaxers. It takes constant seperating of the the real from the fake to mantain any kind of cohesive accounting of the information so far. Sorry if you feel like I'm rubbing it in your face spaffy, I'm not. I'm just trying to make sure that everyone who wants to know, knows. I don't want to just put it in spoilers and have someone mindlessly click on it and get e3 ruined for them.
If you have a better way of going about it I'd like to hear it, Spaffy. I'm serious. Because this way is exhausting. I'm not doing it for attention. If I were I'd take my leak to polygon or Kotaku, not the PA forums.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
It's not like there are wild Bison herds roaming the plains in America either. Europe just had a head start. I'm quite certain you'll lose most of your more demanding larger-size species to habitat loss soon enough, outside of nature reserves. It's inevitable.
Also - fuck trap door spiders and kobras. Seriously.
Pretty sure the game will take place post the events of F3, the prior to the bomb scenes are most likely the character creator.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And I'm replaying FO3 and noticing things to nitpick/hope they've changed. Like why do enemies always shrug off torso and head injuries like mosquito bites? Meanwhile you have to deal with the fuzzy concussion any time your noggin takes a floggin
But doesn't F3 take place 200 years after the bomb?
Anyway, I'd be all for a Fallout that took place, say, 20 years after the bomb, and this looks like it.
It would certainly make 3 easier navigate, I ran into a lot of imaginary walls in 3 and muddled textures made it nearly impossible to navigate without using the shit out of the map.
Edit: on a 360.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
Can't wait to see what they show at e3
This is more important to me than graphics
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
There are wild Bison herds still roaming the plains of America. We've also reintroduced wolves. Bears, cougars and coyotes never went anywhere.
As for the Fallout world, the lack of progress never bothered me that much. While it does have that same sense of weirdly compressed time you find in a lot of fantasy games, especially in terms of how things have or have not degraded in the century+ since the war, the idea that between the radiation, mutants, killer robots, raiders and other post-apocalyptic bullshit, civilization has struggled to advance past the small, fortified settlement stage makes sense. The land simply cannot support enough humans to rebuild civilization.
This is also one of the clearest through-lines in the franchise. By destroying threats like the super mutants and the Enclave, who were making sure to eliminate any threat (i.e. settlement) that got too large, the player characters created rippling effects that allowed for civilization to rebuild itself. This is especially clear in Fallout 3, where the character literally brings fresh water to the wasteland.
There are times in Fallout 3, NV and Skyrim where they really needed it bad and the lack of it really hurt the stories they were trying to tell.
The war in Skyrim and the civil war quests felt rather small as a result of the constraints as did having to wall off several sections of The Strip in New Vegas and even then only having a few people in each area.
Aren't the brahmin supposed to be bison-like?
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
I always took them more as mutated cows.
One thing that occurs to me is that a game set in Mass. could end up having mutated moose. Talk about things that could kill a deathclaw in their present state.
Edit: its got two heads but it still has to look in the same direction because it's antlers are fused together.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
I don't want one right after the bombs, that would mean most of the world is dead and most people are underground. I'd much rather have one where its more western right on the edge of society coming back. Kind of like Defiance's set up.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
I tend to go paragon even in situations where I wouldn't be so paragon IRL.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
I actually rarely replay games that have multiple endings these days. New Vegas was a bit of an exception for me because I liked it so much. My second playthrough in New Vegas was in hardcore mode, which I didn't particularly enjoy, but it all worked out and I won't be playing the game that way again.
I usually go with the "good" side in games like this, or as close to a good side as you can get.
Yep that's me, its like in these games I want to be light of justice you wouldn't find in the real world. Though I do occasionally kill someone who I just know is a bad guy from a previous play through even though in the game I wouldn't be so sure.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I do the same. Usually, I replay games a year or so after the first playthrough and end up making the same choices as the first time.
Mass Effect is the only series where I tended to play the "nice" and "mean" paths, but that's a combination of the male/female actors being different enough to justify a second playthrough, and ME making the fairly unique design choice of the split being more hardass and diplomat than good and evil.
I didn't like Fable, thought everything was too cheery so I quickly spent my time becoming an absolute monster to make things more interesting.
In Fallout 3 and NV, I played mostly well intentioned on the first runs. Most of my characters after that though tend to lean toward evil or morally questionable. In Skyrim, my first Dragonborn was motivated by revenge and personal gain.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012