Fallout 4 Official

[T-Bouw]

Played 1, 2, 3 and Vegas. Really liked 3 a lot!

The little compulsive hoarder in me was even given a burn-out!

As a Fallout-fan, I really expected/wanted to like it, hell I don't even care about the graphics, but the trailer didn't show any new elements in it compared to Fallout 3.

[Ninjahgoblin]

The SandraReed conspiracy is up for debate again. Items that fall in line chronologically add up to the leak she dropped.

Some follow up to leak after F4 news drop:

http://www.gameskinny.com/45pd7/ex-bethesda-employee-leaked-fallout-4-details-nearly-a-year-ago

Original leak:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/28v2dn/i_played_fallout_4/

[Randox]

I very much enjoyed New Vegas. I've played through it a few times. Never could get into Fallout 3 though. I think a lot of it was that the Mojave was able to capture my imagination in a way that DC never did. It felt...bigger, grander, more alone.

I doubt very much the graphics will be a huge deal for those willing to mod, provided that they do not do something so stupid as to tie the detailed render range to the scripting range like they did with Skyrim (for a PC title, that's a bafflingly stupid design choice to make when you are going to encourage a modding community that includes graphical mods). That's not to say that we should rely on the modding community, I am very much a proponent of the stance that even games intended to be modded should stand and be judged in their vanilla condition. But graphics have never been the focus of Fallout, and it is likely that it will have strong mod support like other Bethesda titles.

I'm more interested in the gameplay though, since that's what I come for. If they over simplify the game, or cripple the RPG element altogether, then I would only go for it if I can find suitable mods. I do prefer to go through these titles stock at least once though, so my excitement is I think contingent on them showing strong vanilla gameplay. Not necessarily a new spin on the story or anything, but I want an engaging world (or the options to make it so).

[Brethern]

Sigh where to begin.

I don't get comments like this. They dumped a large amount of money in gamebyo and while patching in more low-level enhancements rather than rewriting to use the latest features would be preferable, we are not actually doing anything INTERESTING with graphics these days. It's just "Bigger Textures" and "Moar Pixel Shaders"... sometimes using "flat textures" or "outlining" rather than investing a single man-hour into actually doing cell-shading (even then, the effect is only used for certain scenes).

Fallout New vegas and 3 are Triple A games, designed to be played on consoles and PC's They could easily make the games look amazing out of the box but that would directly impede performance on a console. So it's far simpler to go for the solution of being conservative on the graphics and letting the PC community make their game look pretty.

Wake me up when we do something as simple as finally stop merging clothing meshes with npc models and apply physical weights and attributes to the clothing model, thus allowing it to not only move realistically instead of being obviously glued to the torso but also be applied damage to realistically; and if we want to further this we'd have areas upon which there are damage be treated as unarmored... well, instead of hyping the upteenth rebirth of VR.

No idea what you're trying to say here seems more like whining that anything constructive.

We also decided it makes no sense that the player has to "discover" locations that the people of the wastes obviously know exists before fast traveling to them; that's why instead of adding in maps or other neat ways of adding lots of locations while keeping some secret, we're revealing EVERY location at once! You can also fast travel to them without needing to visit them; after all, who wants to play walking simulator 2015?

Care to provide a source saying that this is going to happen? Otherwise you're being an entitled brat, this is just general whining that happens before every TES and fallout game is released.

Kindly be quite as you're stirring up unnecessary problems.

We even replaced those huge cities with NPCs that have random lines but no real level of interaction with a pop-up shop. We know the only reason you go to town is to sell and buy, why bother improving your interactions with NPCs and making your actions open up multiple lines of dialog as an evolution of the classic rpg would expect? We still allow you to enter the "city" only so you can shoot everyone, of course, we know that people enjoy that activity very much for some strange reason... but it really is just a testing room with spawns of your choice.

There's this thing called memory, adding in tons of unnecessary npc's eats it up when it could be going towards more useful things. And as I recall FO1 didn't have allot of npc's.

[Fel]

Sigh where to begin.

By reading what you quote to understand the underlying sarcasm? Or perhaps by responding instead of "quoting for effect."

Fallout New vegas and 3 are Triple A games, designed to be played on consoles and PC's They could easily make the games look amazing out of the box but that would directly impede performance on a console. So it's far simpler to go for the solution of being conservative on the graphics and letting the PC community make their game look pretty.

The games look like that because it makes it easier for the largest PC audience to play the game; even your typical console game has "better graphics" than most Bethesda games and Bethesda has NEVER EVER been a Graphics ..... company. Bethesda designs their games first, and foremost, for the PC. Complain all you want about how the GUI has consolitus but the modding tools and graphical enhancements available under the hood are not present in many other AAA games.

Just because YOU are a graphics ..... doesn't mean EVERYONE is so utterly shallow NOR does it mean Bethesda should cater to yet another "we don't care about gameplay just streamline and make graphics pretty" group.

No idea what you're trying to say here seems more like whining that anything constructive.

Intelligent people would understand what I'm talking about.

There's this thing called memory, adding in tons of unnecessary npc's eats it up when it could be going towards more useful things. And as I recall FO1 didn't have allot of npc's.

I hate kiddy scripters who say stuff like this; NPCs take up all of a few kb of memory. Now, "active scene actors" is more of a engine limitation and is mostly just stressing your graphics card; there's a plethora of ways to get around those limitations and otherwise disable or minimally simulate actors that aren't in the players immediate vision / proximity.

And let me see if I understand your comment about Fallout 1. "As technology progresses, gameplay should become less mind provoking and more OMG PRETTY PICTURES!!!!!!!!!!" In other words, you're EASILY validating my sarcasm by not wanting to IMPROVE upon gameplay with the technology you're allotted... and that streamlining away critical features instead of expanding upon them is good.

[Brethern]

By reading what you quote to understand the underlying sarcasm? Or perhaps by responding instead of "quoting for effect."

The games look like that because it makes it easier for the largest PC audience to play the game; even your typical console game has "better graphics" than most Bethesda games and Bethesda has NEVER EVER been a Graphics ..... company. Bethesda designs their games first, and foremost, for the PC. Complain all you want about how the GUI has consolitus but the modding tools and graphical enhancements available under the hood are not present in many other AAA games.

Just because YOU are a graphics ..... doesn't mean EVERYONE is so utterly shallow NOR does it mean Bethesda should cater to yet another "we don't care about gameplay just streamline and make graphics pretty" group.

Intelligent people would understand what I'm talking about.

I hate kiddy scripters who say stuff like this; NPCs take up all of a few kb of memory. Now, "active scene actors" is more of a engine limitation and is mostly just stressing your graphics card; there's a plethora of ways to get around those limitations and otherwise disable or minimally simulate actors that aren't in the players immediate vision / proximity.

And let me see if I understand your comment about Fallout 1. "As technology progresses, gameplay should become less mind provoking and more OMG PRETTY PICTURES!!!!!!!!!!" In other words, you're EASILY validating my sarcasm by not wanting to IMPROVE upon gameplay with the technology you're allotted... and that streamlining away critical features instead of expanding upon them is good.

Don't care, hate whining even if it's sarcasm.

[theend3r]

Don't care, hate whining even if it's sarcasm.

Customers voicing their opinions and concerns or 'whining', as you call it, helps a lot in pushing innovations. If we all just silently smiled and bought CoD 298 II Gold Edition and Street Fighter XXIII Ultra Mega Arcade Bonus Final edition with zero improvements the publishers would have no reason to change anything.

The graphics look good to me though and mods will be there for the rest. Cloth and soft body physics would be great but I can live without them.

[Dodgey]

I honestly don't see the point in all of the the fancy graphical upgrades games have that the Internet seems to go nuts over, to me it just eats up precious processor space that could be spent on rendering that extra meter, or removing that one scene change.

[ZedNova]

As long as i can mod it i'm not concerned about the graphics. Although that blue sky is a welcome change over the constant orangeyellow-grey.

[Dodgey]

I am so happy about the blue sky. With regards to the game I hope the story is a bit more open ended, with slightly less of a main story line than the other ones.

[Bill Phil]

I am so happy about the blue sky. With regards to the game I hope the story is a bit more open ended, with slightly less of a main story line than the other ones.

Yeah...

Didn't New Vegas just "end"? It wasn't open ended. It could use open endedness...

Fallout 3 had a main story that I didn't quite like. New Vegas' system was a big improvement.

[Brethern]

Customers voicing their opinions and concerns or 'whining', as you call it, helps a lot in pushing innovations. If we all just silently smiled and bought CoD 298 II Gold Edition and Street Fighter XXIII Ultra Mega Arcade Bonus Final edition with zero improvements the publishers would have no reason to change anything.

The graphics look good to me though and mods will be there for the rest. Cloth and soft body physics would be great but I can live without them.

Actually I'd be perfectly fine with them sticking to what COD 2 did, I can't stand the new Cod games with their "improvements."

[Fel]

Don't care, hate whining even if it's sarcasm.

Actually I'd be perfectly fine with them sticking to what COD 2 did, I can't stand the new Cod games with their "improvements."

Stop whining... accept the "improvements" in gameplay silently and sit by as something you knew and loved dies due to the demands of the "new target audience."

- - - Updated - - -

Cloth and soft body physics would be great but I can live without them.

Really, it's for modding more than for the consumer. If you replace a body in the game you have to replace EVERY SINGLE associated "clothing part" as well. This also means that if you want two different clothing mods that use two different bodies you cannot have both. I also figured it could be incorporated into the game, especially since "damaged armour" is an arbitrary function instead of reflecting on the actual condition of the armour. It's not the EFFECT I care about, it's what we can do with it.

(Quite frankly, one of the things I'd love to see is ditching the console crafting system and creating an entirely open ended crafting system. Want to duct tape two machine guns onto your armor and use a thread to pull the trigger. Why not? Want to create a "corner shot" out of scrap you found? Why not? Why are we limited to the imaginations of game designers instead of our own? It isn't that we don't have the technology, we do, we've long had it... even if you choose to use "hotareas" to make certain actions easier and assign certain "weapon focuses" to base objects so the game knows how to handle it.)

I honestly don't see the point in all of the the fancy graphical upgrades games have that the Internet seems to go nuts over, to me it just eats up precious processor space that could be spent on rendering that extra meter, or removing that one scene change.

I love the "pro-gamers" retort to the scene changes. "Buy an SSD Drive." I really could do without the elitism when talking about gameplay problems.

But yeah, especially when we're talking about small rooms that wouldn't add too much complexity to the scene (to the engine is a different matter) that you're now greeted with big "Hello, thank you for playing our game" logos is very immersion breaking.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Fel

[Camacha]

I love the "pro-gamers" retort to the scene changes. "Buy an SSD Drive." I really could do without the elitism when talking about gameplay problems.

Did you just make that up?

Of course, you are actually right. It is a decent way of dealing with the problem. In Skyrim, loading screen went by so fast I could not read any of the tips.

[AcidSludge]

I may or may not buy it as a GOTY-Edition.

I've played the ol' timey Fallouts a lot, finished FO3 and NV like three or four times, found Tactics very good and I even own BoS for the old XBox. But...

I've seen the trailer for FO4 and was like http://i.imgur.com/yHd5Hv7.jpg , and I even don't know exactly why. The post-apocalypse got stale for me, or something. *shrug*

[Brethern]

Yeah...

Didn't New Vegas just "end"? It wasn't open ended. It could use open endedness...

Fallout 3 had a main story that I didn't quite like. New Vegas' system was a big improvement.

I think the biggest issue with NV was that they didn't have the time to create a solid after game due to there being dozens of potential endings.

Personally I view fallout 3 to be a love letter to fallout 1, but an east coast version instead, I'd love to see a New whatever state republic form and then have a fallout game based around a major war between the NCR and the east coast republic supposed by lyons brotherhood.

Would be a nice way to finally end that annoyance that is the NCR.

Stop whining... accept the "improvements" in gameplay silently and sit by as something you knew and loved dies due to the demands of the "new target audience."

And whining does exactly nothing, EA killed the Battlefield franchise due to origin and COD is getting worse and worse, instead I choose to not buy the game which does allot better job at hitting the company than a million whine posts will ever do.

[Dodgey]

I love the "pro-gamers" retort to the scene changes. "Buy an SSD Drive." I really could do without the elitism when talking about gameplay problems.

Um what? All I said was that I didn't care about the graphics. What I earth is the "pro gamer" stance.

[ZedNova]

Here's some gameplay from E3

[Brethern]

Here's another video.

I'm not seeing anything I don't like, if anything it's using the best mods base game.

[EuSouONumero345]

It's like if they took everything good from mods and the previous games and made it into an ultimate Fallout game. I have high hopes for this one, but what scares me are the possibilities of a bugged mess being the final product.

[Brethern]

It's like if they took everything good from mods and the previous games and made it into an ultimate Fallout game. I have high hopes for this one, but what scares me are the possibilities of a bugged mess being the final product.

It's a bethesda game, it's going to be a bugged mess which is why you get it for PC and you have access to the console.