RUMOR: Fallout 4 is cross generation (releasing on PS3/PS4 Xbox 360/Xbox One and PC) - Polidicks

The biggest problem I had with Fallout 3 was the terrible combat and overall balance, the game itself isn't too bad (the story could use some work as well as the factions) but god damn the combat was terrible. Literally everything is a bullet sponge. There is also the fact that there are very few weapons and a lot just reuse the same models of each-other with different stats or are completely worthless (Chinese Pistol and .32 Revolver come to mind.) Bethesda would be better off taking the combat from Fallout: New Vegas and expand upon that rather than doing their own thing with it, as otherwise I'm afraid that it would only be dumbed down.

[QUOTE=Lijitsu;47673149]Dying Light?[/QUOTE] haha maybe that's a bit outdated, I heard that a lot when I was in school.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;47670092]I just want a Fallout game set in New York City.[/QUOTE] Smouldering Rubble Simulator 2290 Edition?

Gamebryo or not, I want it. Been waiting for years for a new Fallout. This just has to be true.

We all know Fallout 4 is coming, it's only a matter of when. And even if its "just" Skyrim with guns in a Fallout setting I'd still play the crap out of it.

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;47673936]We all know Fallout 4 is coming, it's only a matter of when. And even if its "just" Skyrim with guns in a Fallout setting I'd still play the crap out of it.[/QUOTE] I would too but there'd be that nagging disappointment that they didn't give any consideration to how silly it looks. Skyrim can get by because the vast majority of enemies are either people/humanoids using melee weapons or monsters whereas in both FO3&NV the vast majority of enemies are people with guns. The AI for ranged enemies would be (and are, with certain mods) far too easy to defeat if they weren't bullet/arrow sponges, and making them as such is a shit way to go about compensating for it. Even a very rudimentary cover system (ie "this thing is within reach of being between me and the attacker. I will crouch behind it and stop moving") would allow them to cut back on the sponginess of both you and your enemies which makes combat feel more visceral and the game as a whole more authentic because it's another human behaviour that the AI are emulating. Like this sort of shit I'd have expected them to have figured out well before 2008. If you were to go from a gunfight in F.E.A.R to one in FO3 or NV, you'd be especially disgusted. This is all coming from someone who has been playing against Operation Flashpoint/ArmA series' AI since 2001. That's another game that doesn't have great AI, and again something I'd have hoped they'd have brought up to a much higher standard by now. In relative terms to the rest of the series, ArmA 3's AI [I]seems[/I] lightyears ahead but compared to other games, naah. Still, it works better than that of FO3/NV, mainly due to the fact they can go prone or crouch and make use of cover, if jankily at best and mods have improved upon this already, though I think it'll be a while til we see ArmA AI that can handle indoor environments well It may be to do with the open nature of the game worlds in ArmA and Fallouts' cases, who knows, maybe it's really difficult to create - or demanding on performance to have AI that can dynamically react to situations in that fashion, where FEAR's AI may only work well because of the maps being designed to facilitate their behaviour. If FO4 has enemies with guns that act like they're bad quake players I'll take a shit

[QUOTE=J Paul;47672805]Yeah while f3 and nv are very different in presentation, I honestly don't prefer one over the other. Beth does fine with the fallout canon. Fine enough for me anyway, I like the east coast wasteland. My only gripes are all the invisible walls and the awful engine they keep using. And the system where everything in the world is scaled to the players' level. That is the most retarded shit I've ever seen in a game, bar none. Worst mechanic ever. Even the thinking behind it is flawed. It's meant to allow every player to beat the game's story completely without doing anything else because the game will adapt to your low level. So, you mean, you actually want the player to trudge across the wasteland going from dialog tree to dialog tree until game's over without ever actually having been played? What is the fucking point of that? Give me a completely open world with no invisible walls to stop me from accidentally (or purposefully) walking into the absolute worst place for me to be, full of non-scaled, high level baddies and massive loot that I'm just not ready for yet. It opens the game up for awesome epic fights where you bite off way more than you can chew but somehow make it out alive and are greatly rewarded for doing so. Moments like that offer most of the fun in the game, for me. Morrowind was full of that shit. Walking into the wrong cave in morrrowind could have you fucked up.[/QUOTE] Didn't mods fix that?

All I want is a Fallout game based in either Europe or the Soviet Union. They were supposedly planning on making a game based on the Resource Wars, and having a game based around simply a post-nuclear war Great Britain would be awesome.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;47674193]I would too but there'd be that nagging disappointment that they didn't give any consideration to how silly it looks. Skyrim can get by because the vast majority of enemies are either people/humanoids using melee weapons or monsters whereas in both FO3&NV the vast majority of enemies are people with guns. The AI for ranged enemies would be (and are, with certain mods) far too easy to defeat if they weren't bullet/arrow sponges, and making them as such is a shit way to go about compensating for it. Even a very rudimentary cover system (ie "this thing is within reach of being between me and the attacker. I will crouch behind it and stop moving") would allow them to cut back on the sponginess of both you and your enemies which makes combat feel more visceral and the game as a whole more authentic because it's another human behaviour that the AI are emulating. Like this sort of shit I'd have expected them to have figured out well before 2008. If you were to go from a gunfight in F.E.A.R to one in FO3 or NV, you'd be especially disgusted. This is all coming from someone who has been playing against Operation Flashpoint/ArmA series' AI since 2001. That's another game that doesn't have great AI, and again something I'd have hoped they'd have brought up to a much higher standard by now. In relative terms to the rest of the series, ArmA 3's AI [I]seems[/I] lightyears ahead but compared to other games, naah. Still, it works better than that of FO3/NV, mainly due to the fact they can go prone or crouch and make use of cover, if jankily at best and mods have improved upon this already, though I think it'll be a while til we see ArmA AI that can handle indoor environments well It may be to do with the open nature of the game worlds in ArmA and Fallouts' cases, who knows, maybe it's really difficult to create - or demanding on performance to have AI that can dynamically react to situations in that fashion, where FEAR's AI may only work well because of the maps being designed to facilitate their behaviour. If FO4 has enemies with guns that act like they're bad quake players I'll take a shit[/QUOTE] Yeah, but ARMA's AI has to deal with a lot of factors and stuff that is not present in other FPS. Plus, don't forget, FEAR AI's wasnt THAT great. Devs clarified a long time ago their "magic" resided in the map design, which would led one to believe they were actual smart sonsofbitches. The problem with Fallout as I see it, is that they only coded "generic" AI's for every kind of role: Melee, Distance and explosives/whatever. So a shitty looter armed with a .32 revolver behaves exactly as the best Ranger from the NCR armed with a .45-70 govt lever Rifle. Only that the later soaks up more bullets and can kill you more quickly. If they added a cover system and different behaviours for different enemy levels, then it would far more entertaining. If they thrown in a squad orders system ala Brothers in Arms, then count me in. If modern gaming devices can handle GTA5 and run it smoothly, then they can as sure handle any kind of complex AI for a Fallout game. They must not code it because it's expensive as fuck.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47674970]All I want is a Fallout game based in either Europe or the Soviet Union. They were supposedly planning on making a game based on the Resource Wars, and having a game based around simply a post-nuclear war Great Britain would be awesome.[/QUOTE] Fallout can't exist outside of the US, otherwise it loses the majority of it's identity. Fallout is the 1950's US nuclear paranoia state mixed with WW2 patriotic fervor. Great Britain wasn't even nuked, it just descended into anarchy before the bombings. It would at best turn out like Fallout Tactics, a somewhat interesting Spinoff that doesn't capture the atmosphere of Fallout.

you can't give me a fallout game made by obsidian and then expect me to play one not made by them going from NV to Skyrim shows the difference between the two styles so fucking much

[QUOTE=Adarrek;47674262]Didn't mods fix that?[/QUOTE] There's always a mod to fix it. That's the thing though, they should take the hint. It's ridiculous.

Obsidian's writing is significantly stronger than anything Bethesda has ever put out. FNV's Dead Money, Old World Blues and Lonesome Road DLCs are a testament to that. New Vegas is just so much better than 3, even with the shortlisted development cycle issues that are apparent.

funny back when New Vegas was first released everyone was all jumping on the 3-is-better-bandwagon how times change...

[QUOTE=J Paul;47672805]Yeah while f3 and nv are very different in presentation, I honestly don't prefer one over the other. Beth does fine with the fallout canon. Fine enough for me anyway, I like the east coast wasteland. My only gripes are all the invisible walls and the awful engine they keep using. And the system where everything in the world is scaled to the players' level. That is the most retarded shit I've ever seen in a game, bar none. Worst mechanic ever. Even the thinking behind it is flawed. It's meant to allow every player to beat the game's story completely without doing anything else because the game will adapt to your low level. So, you mean, you actually want the player to trudge across the wasteland going from dialog tree to dialog tree until game's over without ever actually having been played? What is the fucking point of that? Give me a completely open world with no invisible walls to stop me from accidentally (or purposefully) walking into the absolute worst place for me to be, full of non-scaled, high level baddies and massive loot that I'm just not ready for yet. It opens the game up for awesome epic fights where you bite off way more than you can chew but somehow make it out alive and are greatly rewarded for doing so. Moments like that offer most of the fun in the game, for me. Morrowind was full of that shit. Walking into the wrong cave in morrrowind could have you fucked up.[/QUOTE] Fallout 3 pretty much broke canon though. Spoilers for Fallout 2: [sp]The Enclave was wiped out on the oil rig on the west coast and they previously had no east-coast presence. Fallout 3 completely pulled the Enclave out of its ass in Washington DC because they needed a villain that appealed to fans.[/sp] [editline]6th May 2015[/editline] my meeeeerge

[QUOTE=MaddaCheeb;47675536]Fallout 3 pretty much broke canon though. Spoilers for Fallout 2: [sp]The Enclave was wiped out on the oil rig on the west coast and they previously had no east-coast presence. Fallout 3 completely pulled the Enclave out of its ass in Washington DC because they needed a villain that appealed to fans.[/sp] [editline]6th May 2015[/editline] my meeeeerge[/QUOTE] [sp]They weren't completely wiped out, they had smaller bases across the country, notably in Illinois. They're only on the east coast in 3 because a few years before the game takes place Eden recalled them there.[/sp]

[QUOTE=MaddaCheeb;47675536]Fallout 3 pretty much broke canon though. Spoilers for Fallout 2: [sp]The Enclave was wiped out on the oil rig on the west coast and they previously had no east-coast presence. Fallout 3 completely pulled the Enclave out of its ass in Washington DC because they needed a villain that appealed to fans.[/sp] [editline]6th May 2015[/editline] my meeeeerge[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ardosos;47675545][sp]They weren't completely wiped out, they had smaller bases across the country, notably in Illinois. They're only on the east coast in 3 because a few years before the game takes place Eden recalled them there.[/sp][/QUOTE] Also, to be perfectly honest, [sp]having there be absolutely no members of a faction that's the remnants of pre-war government in literally the capital of the nation of said government is pretty dumb. And no matter how important the oil rig, Raven Rock, or the crawler were, destroying them isn't going to cause the rest of the faction to dissolve into nothingness.[/sp]

[QUOTE=RustyGears;47673151]The biggest problem I had with Fallout 3 was the terrible combat and overall balance, the game itself isn't too bad (the story could use some work as well as the factions) but god damn the combat was terrible. Literally everything is a bullet sponge. There is also the fact that there are very few weapons and a lot just reuse the same models of each-other with different stats or are completely worthless (Chinese Pistol and .32 Revolver come to mind.) Bethesda would be better off taking the combat from Fallout: New Vegas and expand upon that rather than doing their own thing with it, as otherwise I'm afraid that it would only be dumbed down.[/QUOTE] Just get the goddamn bloody mess perk. It makes heads explode, quite literally in fact. [editline]7th May 2015[/editline] You know, I'm going to say that in reality, FNV and FO3 really can't be compared. I think it's just that there's a different "feel" to the games, and I believe it all comes down to one thing: Population of the wasteland. In Fallout 3, the world is a very desolate barren place with not many people in it. You are free to go around explore the world after the bombs fell without too much hassle aside from the occasional Raider or Super mutant. In Fallout New Vegas it's completely different. The Mojave is populated with many more people than The Capital Wasteland. Every so often there's a town, a raider camp or one of the factions' forts. The game changes from exploration to the interactions between characters. In the end, I think this is really what causes the difference between the two. It explains why people who like to explore, like me, love Fallout 3 and why people who love a more story focused game love Fallout New Vegas.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;47675796]Just get the goddamn bloody mess perk. It makes heads explode, quite literally in fact. [editline]7th May 2015[/editline] You know, I'm going to say that in reality, FNV and FO3 really can't be compared. I think it's just that there's a different "feel" to the games, and I believe it all comes down to one thing: Population of the wasteland. In Fallout 3, the world is a very desolate barren place with not many people in it. You are free to go around explore the world after the bombs fell without too much hassle aside from the occasional Raider or Super mutant. In Fallout New Vegas it's completely different. The Mojave is populated with many more people than The Capital Wasteland. Every so often there's a town, a raider camp or one of the factions' forts. The game changes from exploration to the interactions between characters. In the end, I think this is really what causes the difference between the two. It explains why people who like to explore, like me, love Fallout 3 and why people who love a more story focused game love Fallout New Vegas.[/QUOTE] Never thought about that. Been so long since I played FO3, but I did enjoy FO:NV more, felt more alive to me. I do remember adding mods that like doubled the amount of AI in towns & added more convoys/patrols throughout the Mojave, and that REALLY made it more immersive/dynamic and all around more enjoyable. [editline]7th May 2015[/editline] I just [I]really[/I] hope the gunplay isn't as broken. I'd love FO3 & FO:NV without the silly random weapon spread, (seemingly) random weapon damage, fluctuating weapon RoF and the delay from clicking to when the gun fires/stops shooting. I mean you can hold the trigger down from 15 feet away while directly aiming at center mass and have all your rounds hit random limbs/the floor. The firerate was also determined by the speed of the weapon's animation or something silly too.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47674970]They were supposedly planning on making a game based on the Resource Wars, and having a game based around simply a post-nuclear war Great Britain would be awesome.[/QUOTE] It would pretty much be this: [video=youtube;7AVBEwTIfDM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AVBEwTIfDM[/video]

Personally I also hope that they do improve the gunplay, because sometimes using guns without vats is a chore and honestly I hate vats, I never ever want to use it, but I'm forced to sometimes because the gameplay is just broken. I remember there was a mod that allowed you to use your AP as a bullet time meter, which is something I would want to see in the stock game (as a perk or something). It would be great for people like me who don't like using vats but want something useful to do with AP that will help in a gunfight.

It better not be.

Cross generational? Not a bad idea since last gen still represents a huge base of potential buyers. I just hope the current gen counterparts don't suffer. I think Bethesda has most elements of Fallout down. They just need to focus on fixing the glitches and improving the graphics (because the Fallout universe is such a fascinating place, it deserves better graphical fidelity so it can be fully realized).

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;47669563]I'd really dig a Fallout set on the Alaskan coast. Isolation, near whiteout conditions, mutant sea monsters, mutants that actively stalk you through the blizzards It'd be great m8[/QUOTE] I want Fallout 4: Sydney. Mutated kangaroos with 3 heads that can jump 100 feet in the air.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;47679394]Cross generational? Not a bad idea since last gen still represents a huge base of potential buyers. I just hope the current gen counterparts don't suffer. I think Bethesda has most elements of Fallout down. They just need to focus on fixing the glitches and improving the graphics (because the Fallout universe is such a fascinating place, it deserves better graphical fidelity so it can be fully realized).[/QUOTE] If they do it on last generation they cant have it equal on all boards. They need to have the current gen and pc unaffected by the heavily outdated last gen specs.

Why not Fallout New Orleans? There's already a lot of footage from the destroyed city when the Katrina happened. It could be awesome with all the voodoo lore, maybe there could be some kind of Baron Samedi that can control Ghouls with the use of radiactive spores or something, also mutant alligators of battle. Imagine travelling thru the city and founding a +200 year old skeleton with the Mardi Grass beads still on its neck.

Not really felling this one. For one, compared to Obsidian's Fallout, Bethesda Fallout falls flat on it's face in almost every aspect. And then the pay mods might be comming. Bethesda games are always buggy messes that we play while waiting for mods. Also I hope they don't start simplifying the system on Fallout. SPECIAL, skills and perks are fine the way they are.

[QUOTE=Chrisordie;47678767]It would pretty much be this: [video=youtube;7AVBEwTIfDM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AVBEwTIfDM[/video][/QUOTE] oh my god i watched this film on TCM years ago and found myself unable to find another soul who knew of its existence

NW looked like garbage and I don't think I can take another Bethesda game in the boat-simulating Gamebreo engine, regardless of how much I enjoyed F3. [editline]7th May 2015[/editline] I don't think Bethesda's claim to "open world mastery" can no longer make up for honestly some of the worst combat in AAA games today. [editline]7th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Axsisel;47679711]Why not Fallout New Orleans? There's already a lot of footage from the destroyed city when the Katrina happened. It could be awesome with all the voodoo lore, maybe there could be some kind of Baron Samedi that can control Ghouls with the use of radiactive spores or something, also mutant alligators of battle. Imagine travelling thru the city and founding a +200 year old skeleton with the Mardi Grass beads still on its neck.[/QUOTE] I have been craving a messed-up New Orleans ever since L4D2 disappointed in that field.

[QUOTE=IM BATMAN;47670659]Didn't Bethesda trademark a modified version of Id Tech 5 called the Void Engine? [url]http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-dishonored-parent-company-trademarks-void-engine/1100-6416178/[/url] If so it'd make a lot more sense to port to last gen consoles considering how fantastic Id Tech 5 games run on them.[/QUOTE] I would like to point out that John Carmack himself has said that Id Tech 5 is completely unsuitable for open-world games, especially The Elder Scrolls. [QUOTE]He added that id Tech 5 is "not magic," and the engine is good for certain kinds of games such as Rage, but not as much for games such as Grand Theft Auto that render cities with lots of surface area. "The megatexture direction [in id Tech 5] has some big wins, but it's also fairly restrictive on certain types of games," he said. "[B]It would be a completely unacceptable engine to do [Bethesda's Elder Scrolls V:] Skyrim in, where you've got the whole world, walking across these huge areas[/B]." [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35125/E3_ids_Carmack_Willits_Happy_To_Be_Done_With_Engine_Licensing.php"]Source[/URL]