Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Love how the Vegas status is unknown due to House and his laser defence grid shooting down most of the nukes, thus keeping most of Vegas intact.

Manchu wrote:
I bet it's one of those sharp contrast rich-next-to-the-poor situations in Boston, something like Tenpenny Tower or the West Coast BoS. The Institute is probably materially quite cushy, if rather sinister, but I doubt its members much go out of their way to help others -- at least if Dr. Zimmer is any indication.

in the fallout games, the large scientific groups are always working to make the lives of the people of the wasteland better, be it the followers, project purity, etc.
Dr. Zimmer is part of the Institue's Synth Retention Bureau which is why he was a jerk

the Rich to poor thing is probably more along the lines of Humans-next-to-the-Snythslaves

I hope that the main character is a snyth
"The andriod"
Using the following outline for male character

I hope they fixed the engine, loved the game but the buginess was extremely annoying.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
in the fallout games, the large scientific groups are always working to make the lives of the people of the wasteland better

Hmm ....

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Brotherhood_Outcasts

Manchu wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
in the fallout games, the large scientific groups are always working to make the lives of the people of the wasteland better

Hmm ....

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Brotherhood_Outcasts

The brotherhood changed from game to game

Fallout 1
They are a decaying organizations and at the end (which is the end that bethesda chose to go with) they started to gather tech, research it and develop their own, while helping the people of the wastland
Fallout 2
tensions grow with the NCR begin to become paranoid and they want to remove all tech from the people of the wasteland and keep them hidden
Fallout 3
This group of brotherhood of steel are about helping the people of the wasteland
-Outcast break away and continue the paranoid gather up all tech

Fallout newvegas
-still paranoid from FO2, they kill anyone with tech (mainly energy weapons) and take it back.
at the end they are dead/still paranoid/out in the world "helping" people because the NCR will return all of the powerarmour/weapons they took of dead Brotherhood members

The big Science groups atm are

The followers - Working the help the people of the wasteland
Brotherhood of steel - DC group (appears to be the largest remaining group) is helping the people of the wasteland, (Outcast/Mojave kill mutants and horde tech, but outcasts/mojave change depending on character actions)
Enclave - large groups with a "President" kill stuff in the name of science, Remants appear to help people (also enclave remants in fallout 3 wont attack people of their officer is dead/not spawned)
The Institute - not enough information
Bigmountain - Pyromaniac toaster.. thats all you need to know (not helping people)


so yeah its 2 helping 1 somewhat helping(we don't know how many are left that are "evil") vs 1 unkown and 1 that makes appliances with feelings

The Capital Wasteland Brotherhood is an oddity. The other chapters don't share Elder Lyons's philosophy. The so-called Outcasts are the authentic Brotherhood and they have no interest in helping anyone outside their order.

Although my motivation is quite a bit biased, I wouldn't mind seeing it take place somewhere closer up north so they could show what happened to the annexed parts of Canada and how they weathered the nuclear storm that followed. They've already made reference to Ronto (Toronto) in the PItt DLC and it'd be really great to see that idea expanded into something fleshed out.

Hell they could even throw in Deathbeavers and Maple Mutants to make up for the lack of FEV. Maybe even a mutated antagonist called Blob Ford whose slave empire is falling apart because of his erratic behaviour caused by his jet addiction.

I would like to see a fallout game set on 'the other side' - either china or russia. Would be interesting to contrast the pre-war outlook of the people and government to the rest of the american-centric games as well as see how people are living and working at the in game present.

There was going to be a Fallout game set in China titled, "Fallout: Extreme!!!" (exclamation marks for emphasis). ...It did not look good. Still, the original games had the premise of focussing on just one part of the US, with each subsequent game branching out to show how the rest of the wasteland has developed. Those games made by other developers messed this up somewhat, but due to this the player is always left wondering what happened to the rest of the world, and if the NCR is really the only thriving community out there (of course then they encounter the Legion). So I wouldn't like a game directly set outside the US, but one which includes references (less vague than Alasdair Tenpenny in F3) that expand on what those other countries were like, and maybe what actually happened to the rest of the world.

The intro from the Fallout movie could be a nice set piece for a game too I think. It begins with a panning shot over a pre-war city, before revealing that its being taken from a train car moving across it. From inside the car the main character and others dressed in a pre war style mule about a...pre war fashion. Eventually however, the car stops. The pre war skyline fades to black, to be revealed to have been just a video, whilst the car was only moving along on a short rail segment. The whole thing was just an imitation of pre war life for Vault Dwellers to help stave off the claustrophobia/whatever of living in a bunker for the rest of their lives.

...Which I think would be a great intro/segment of a game (as long as the player doesn't know that what they're experiencing isn't real).

 Wyrmalla wrote:
The intro from the Fallout movie could be a nice set piece for a game too I think. It begins with a panning shot over a pre-war city, before revealing that its being taken from a train car moving across it. From inside the car the main character and others dressed in a pre war style mule about a...pre war fashion. Eventually however, the car stops. The pre war skyline fades to black, to be revealed to have been just a video, whilst the car was only moving along on a short rail segment. The whole thing was just an imitation of pre war life for Vault Dwellers to help stave off the claustrophobia/whatever of living in a bunker for the rest of their lives.

What movie is this? Only one I ever heard of was Nuka Break, and I don't remember that starting off like this.

When Black Isle still owned the rights there was a movie planned. It never got past the draft stages, but the Vault wiki has a copy of the scene synopsis, characters and dialogue. Based on those it wouldn't have been half bad, despite alterning the canon somewhat.

I think Fallout depends on an aesthetic that is familiar yet bizarre -- so you know, postapocalyptic 60s and all that. It would be a lot harder to foster the faux-nostalgia in non-Chinese audiences if you set the game in China.

I wouldn't mind a largish DLC pack set in Canada, however. That could be really interesting.

* 50s. (though 60's elements are present (Elvis, Greasers), Americans culture as a whole is based around that period. Not to say it didn't develop though, it just kept the look).

Canada could be... depressing. It was a country held under the influence of a pretty horrible regime. The US was under martial law come 2077, with people going missing in the night, etc. In the states of Canada and Mexico the US would have been a lot heavier handed (Fallout 1 opens with a Canadian resistance fighter being executed with a caption like, "Our dedicated boys keep the peace in newly annexed Canada!). So whilst hearing about what the US did to other countries via third parties is fine, actually showing it doesn't have quite the same effect.

Aside from that, showing of China may be a big no no, considering how much it would offend the Chinese. The government there's not to fond of commentary on their handling of things during that period, and somewhat like the US, tends to remember it through tinted glasses. Any information on the matter would probably be incredibly biased given that it'd be coming from a US perspective (even the intelligence agencies chose to only speak in half truths). On top of that China's probably much worse off than the US considering that it was already on its last legs before the war (the US was too, they were just good at hiding it). The US had troops stationed at most 649 miles from China's capital some time before the Great War (Randall Clark from Honest Hearts was stationed in Nanjing from June to September 2076, and Shanghai from September to May 2077, before being moved to Canada), and weren't known to respect the rules of war (the UN longer existing and all, as was racism institutionalised). Though China had also similarly annexed the countries around it like the US had, so perhaps they still had holdouts there.

It might hard for a lot of people to accept that pre-war USA was quite a crapsack nation run by horrible donkey-caves who only cared about their own skins, something the devs have gleefully pushed home with a lot of the games.

What will interest me though is this: Will this be a Fallout 3 or a New Vegas?

Reason I'm wondering is because while 3 was good, it's quite forgettable and well, didn't really feel super Fallout to me, whereas New Vegas did, complete with that dark, dark humour that the first two games also had.

We don't talk about Tactics at my place, that game is horribly non-canon.

I love FO3 and like NV. NV is a good setting but the story (or rather stories) never felt as sweeping or coherent to me. There are moments from FO3 that I will never forget; can't say the same for NV.

Bethesda will most likely be the developers. Obsidian's making their own game right now, and are so small they can only do one at a time. The verbal contract the two companies have is that Bethesda makes a Fallout game, the Obsidian have a short development time to make their own game using the same assets (and much better writing skills).

Fallout: New Vegas is more of a Fallout game than 3 was. It carries over the themes of the original games, and keeps the setting. 3 may be set in the same world, but it just didn't get the feeling or the series' message. However, I enjoy Bethesda games, generic as they are, and Skyrim was fun. So I will play 4, to death to, but I'll be awaiting the Obsidian game that results from it it too.

Mind that Tactics had a poor development period, and little input from Black Isle, despite being the series' first spin off and the apparent need for some hand holding. If the game hadn't been pushed for an early release, had actually finished its bug testing period (the devs were given a month to do it in), and was much more polished, it... would still have been a poor game. Having just played it a few weeks ago I can say that it felt odd, given that it was an RPG that was being shoe horned into the RTS setting. No, what we don't talk about is FOBOS. ^^

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Bethesda will most likely be the developers.

What a strange thing to say. Bethesda will of course develop FO4.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
verbal contract

You can also be sure they have a written contract. I'd like to see a source for said contract covering more than NV.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Fallout: New Vegas is more of a Fallout game than 3 was.

Ehhhhhh. I mean, if all you're saying is that NV was less original, sure. FO3 is a darker and less goofy take on the series, which is why the setting is the Capital Wasteland.

I liked both FO3 and NV myself, just for different reasons.

Manchu wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Bethesda will most likely be the developers.

What a strange thing to say. Bethesda will of course develop FO4.

Ah, given that people were wondering if it were Bethesda or Obsidian who would developed the next game I was just clarifying.

Manchu wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
verbal contract

You can also be sure they have a written contract. I'd like to see a source for said contract covering more than NV.

What I mean by verbal is that Obsidian said they'd like to make another Fallout game using a similar structure, and that Bethesda were warm to this idea.

Manchu wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Fallout: New Vegas is more of a Fallout game than 3 was.

Ehhhhhh. I mean, if all you're saying is that NV was less original, sure. FO3 is a darker and less goofy take on the series, which is why the setting is the Capital Wasteland.

Fallout 3 certainly had its moments, the Pitts in particular presented me with a moment where for the first time in a long time I had to stop playing and really thing things through.. The "Cure" as people kept calling it.. Holy gak.

But as said above, New Vegas just ties in a whole lot better with the background and continuity of the first two games, mostly by using parts of the sadly never realized excellent Project Van Buren.

Also, the New Vegas DLC had a nice arc going on and didn't feel like filler, unlike Mothership Zeta and Operation Anchorage, which by the way was a cool idea.

Finally.. Spoilered for language, they gave us Muggy.

I don't think generic is the right word to capture FO3's divergence from the goofiness of the series. Bethesda prioritized a certain romantic quality over the droll quirkiness of the Interplay/Black Isle games. And NV owes just as much to FO3 as the older games, TBH, even if it does return to the goofier tone. I think it's an East Coast/West Coast thing. I am betting FO4 will be much closer to FO3 in tone than NV.

Yeah, mainly because Bethesda will be doing it again. So, expect a buggy product, but nowhere near as buggy as the future Obsidian sequel to Fallout 4.

Though with 100% less Monty Python references, homicidal toasters and philosophical discussion via the medium of a man in a pin stripe suit with a gun to your head.

But with more grimdark apocalyptic logs.

One think I hope Bethesda learns from NV is the companion mechanic. FO3's companions were hopeless by comparison. Of course NV's were pretty damn buggy.

Well for some reason they didn't implement the companion wheel Obsidian made (or something like it at least) into Skyrim, so perhaps not. Having to sift through a bunch of menus to perform even the most basic of commands is annoying. Dialogue aught to be used to improve the narrative, and for more complex companion interaction like setting up patrol routes or whatever, not to open an inventory or tell them to not drop their litter.

Still some decent companions would be nice too. By that I'm referring to Fallout 3 and Skyrim's undeveloped ones. Particularly in Skyrim there was ten a penny, but barring a few conversation trees they wasn't much to distinguish them. New Vegas however had great NPCs, who were effected by the players actions and (heaven forbid) even had their own quests and ending slides (what's a "where are they now sequence" I hear you say Fallout 3?). Bethesda prefers to tell their stories via quests however, as some dev said (...ah he was in one of the Dayz interviews) their games are "like an ocean that's only a foot deep".

Despite talking about Bethesda somewhat negatively in this thread I am still a massive fan of their games though. ...Its just easier to criticise than build something up, and I guess it shows I care enough about the series to even bother noting their failings (what's that I hear FOBOS? Back to the basement with you! Get!).

Oooh, right. I hated it that Fallout 3 didn't have that classic slideshow. It's a great way of telling the player "Way to go JERK / HERO"

Manchu wrote:
One think I hope Bethesda learns from NV is the companion mechanic. FO3's companions were hopeless by comparison. Of course NV's were pretty damn buggy.

Did you not enjoy Fawkes with vengeance? Having a Companion that could kill Every enemy before they entered render distance was a great. (now the interactions with Companions, sidequests and their story after, made them great in NV).

And remeber folks Bethseda had to make Fallout 3 from scratch (engine, story, etc) while Fallout NV had it's story and characters done a while ago (van buren) and had a complete engine to work with. so they spent more time on fleshing out characters, adding weapon content, etc

While the ammount of guns they had in NV was great, getting powerful weapons was really easy and they are abundant throughout the game (Gauss rifle, tesla cannon). Which made the game more of a steamroll rather quickly compaired to 3.

Manchu wrote:
I love FO3 and like NV. NV is a good setting but the story (or rather stories) never felt as sweeping or coherent to me. There are moments from FO3 that I will never forget; can't say the same for NV.

I have to agree New Vegas was basically just an awesome experience equally rewarding as through out while fo3 is an a janky mess dotted with derpy encounters and the best parts are where there isn't happening anything.

Bethasda basically just made a list of things they saw in fo2 wiki page and said they need to include all these things (also feth canon). fo3 basically spent first portion of the game building up this interesting mystery and then... nothing, POOF ENCLAVE!

I could never enjoy New Vegas as much as 3. First and foremost, the many crippling glitches that rendered your game unplayable that still haven't been fixed to this day. Then there was the lack of adventure that 3 presented; a huge portion all around the outside of the map has nothing in it. The story also was very linear and thus made the game a lot more linear. Sure you chose a side from many, but you always ended up in the same places and the game tended to push you onward to the next quest, rather than the big-scape 'out-on-your-own' style of 3. But I suppose those were the styles that suited each game; 3 made you feel lost in the wasteland, whereas NV had the direction of a returning society.