I don't think that you were.

There are plenty of people that tolerate aspect in games, even when they were the point. Some even [actually] tolerate gameplay itself, merely for liking the setting of a game.

There was a "little" more focus on story back then....

Wasn't sold on it before, still not sold on it.

Will I buy it? Eventually, but it certainly won't be day one.

Tolerate? Many of us prefer this to the obnoxious turn-based isometrics.

No argument there.... however, no Fallout there either.

(Think "strawberry cheese cake"... Some like cheesecake, but not strawberries... Now imagine them claiming that strawberry cheese cake ~without the strawberries was better strawberry cheese cake; not better cheese cake ~better "strawberry cheese cake".)

This would seem a fit example of the sentiment.

Oh Im very eager to play it, lots of fun stuff like the customising, not gonna bother to much qith the housing part, rest tho Im stoked, even the PA which I normally dont like looks fun for once.

Maybe, but Fallout never had a particularly groundbreaking story IMO.

I've honestly gotten more enjoyment out of NV's story then Fo1- Tactics, even with all my grips about the entire setup of NV.

Then I am guessing you belong to a different generation of gamers than I do.

As for "Groundbreaking story" thats a highly subjective term. It was groundbreaking enough to gain a significant following, and groundbreaking enough for Bethesda to want to pick up and fight for the IP.

Storywise I got alot more out of the original fallout than I did from FO3. I liked the Pitt, and still think its the best DLC in the series. However there is a tendency in the gaming and entertainment industry to go for "Streamlining", and that usually means less focus on writing and story, and more about big booms, and pewpew.

I don't know, been playing games for over 20 years myself.

Also, story wasn't the only reason Fallout gained a significant following, nor was it the only reason Beth bought the franchise. I honestly recall more conversations about its setting, and the numbers of Easter eggs/pop culture references, which I guess is part of the setting, more then the story, which were all fairly SKELETOR!!!!! in terms of depth or quality.

I'm not sold yet.

I don't think I can live with no skills and a pre-set protagonist. I like more RPG in my games.

I've seen what happened to Skyrim without attributes and spellmaking and I am not willing to pay full price for a Fallout if it is similarly gutted of core features.

The ideas were actually better than anything I could imagine (in terms of practical features). Especially building your own towns with turrets and guards.

Even with them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQoAf0WoNzA I'm still extremely optimistic about this game. BGS showed off so many great features for the game that I can't help but to trust them fully.

1) Well, I started with the Z16 and Commodore games. Games like "Infiltrator" and "Eye of the Beholder" stuff. I guess we have gravitated to each our prefrence then.

2) The setting and lore IS the story. Without the story, the setting and lore makes really no sense at all. And with poor writing, the lore and setting makes for a crap game, with crap dialogue that breaks suspension of disbelief from the word "go". The Original Fallout and FO2 had a sufficiantly interesting (and amusing) story to keep you interested, to keep you from breaking suspension of disbelief. FO3 was a hard transition from that. NV was better handled. I am just hoping that there is more focus on the logic, lore, story, in short, its writing, than FO3 presented.

It looks nothing like a Fallout game.

It looks like a fun game on its own merits.

Just like Fallout 3 did.

But it does nothing to add to Fallout.

They didn't learn a damn thing from FNV or us on the forums criticizing Fallout 3.

The only thing I liked in the E3 show, and that is the one and only damn thing, is that I can wear a dress when playing as a male character.

That's it.

Settlement building is useless as they will never be fully fleshed out dialogue rich settlements like a properly designed settlement.

SPECIAL is limited to a maximum of 4 in each stat (28 stat points) which means that I can't go by my usual way of roleplaying in Fallout where 5 is average as now it seems like 2 or 3 is average.

There is no skills menu and when in the crafting screen Science said "Rank 2" on something, so skills are gone in the traditional sense.

Voiced protagonist limites roleplaying 'a lot' none of my characters that I roleplayed as in FNV for example sounded anything like the two in the trailer.

And Mass Effect dialogue? It's awful, I like to know 'exactly' what my character is going to say before I pick an option, ME's dialogue system was always crap to me.

And we see again that Bethesda don't care about limitations, we can use a jetpack with the weight of a power armor. That's absurd.

I don't like the dog.

If anything the E3 show made me 'even more' wary of Fallout 4 and I honestly don't think I'll buy it.

Bethesda has no clue what Fallout is. For Fallout 3 one could make excuses for Bethesda's poor design choices and writing.

But now? You can't.

But.

I could still be sold on the writing/quest design/handling of lore, if they do it well.

The thing I love most about Fallout is the setting, the lore, the quests, the dialogue, the characters and factions and events that transpire.

If they can get 'that' part right, then I might get it, at a discounted price of course.

But considering how awful the dialogue has been in Bethesda games and considering their poor design of quests in Skyrim and considering how Bethesda has time and time again messed up the lore I doubt I'll get Fallout 4. I'll probably stick around here on the forums to whine and moan for a while but I feel like I'm getting ready to leave as whatever abomination Bethesda paraded around at E3 was, it wasn't Fallout. It wore the skin of Fallout but it was not Fallout. I know Fallout and that thing ain't fooling me.

So no, I am not sold on "Fallout" 4.

Not really.

Have you played TES? It has a mountains worth of mind-[censored] quality lore that's never brought up in any of the quests or plots....... the quality of lore and background is totally disconnected from the story, and vice versa. Witcher has managed to make a fairly interesting story despite its horribly generic copy-paste lore.

And no, Fo2 has probably the most over the top stupid everything in the series before Mothership Zeta came around. Its was so full of parody and self-referential content that is was basically the Borderlands of its time. Even some of the worst of Fallout 3 doesn't come close to matching the level of 4-th wall breaking stupid in Fo2.

Hell, Fo2 was so bad Avellone tried to basically decanonize like half of it in the bibles.

A sad fate for one of the best RPG franchises of the 1990's.

Of course not.

Be that as it may, it at least looked, worked and sounded like a Falout game where it actually mattered.

The last of its kind.

Sure. Ive played every TES since Daggerfall. And I happen to like the [censored]ton of lore. Means someone is doing some writing to keep me immersed. And the ingame logic and lore gives me a reason to visit daedric temples, and not just mindlessly hack and slash my way through the game. As for sidequests being "Disconnected from the story", You cant have every sidequest related to the main story, because factions and groups have different goals and stories to tell, depending on race, socioeconomic status, culture etc. I rather like that bit too. Even if I do realize that most of the quests I gain from them are "Fed Ex" quests.

FO2 I liked for the parody. But then I am a big fan of taking the piss on something. Cultural thing. I'm Danish. We have a millenium of tradition on it. I am a big fan of Monty too, and I found the over the top charicatures and their puns to an ultra-nationalistic US to be entertaining.

Avellone and Sawyer have differences in opinion on writing and the in-setting story progression. I am in the Sawyer Camp. Avellones creation "Ulysses" didnt help much either.

lol what's wrong with that?

it's the nuclear(*wink* *wink*) family. fits the time period.

What matters in a Fallout game is entirely subjective. Same thing as what "matters" in any game really.

That wasn't exactly what I was talking about, I meant that most side quests have nothing to do with any of the "deep lore" of the games. The lore doesn't REALLY natter that much in regards to most of the things you do.

I love parody in games, my favorite well..... of most things, have been those that take the piss out of everything. The problem I have with Fallout 2 is that, while it is parody in a lot of places, it still largely pretends to have some amount of seriousness in it. On the other hand, I feel Fallout 3 and NV do a lot more to just accept the natural stupidity of their setting, and are made better for it.

The closest example I can think of is the difference between GTA and Saints Row 3-4. GTA has some funny self-referential stuff in it, but it still tires to have a "serious" plot, and is ultimately held back by it, because it can't go as far as it could with its gameplay or setting due to having to remain somewhat "serious". Saints Row 3-4 on the other hand don't even pretend, they just accept the natural stupidity of their gameplay and setting, and just roll with it until they hit the wall of what the gameplay and settings allow.... which is a fairly far wall. As such, it has SO MUCH better everything for it. I honestly think SR3-4 have far better plots then any GTA game, if only because they know exactly what they are, and just accept that, and thus can use it to its fullest.

OWB is probably my favorite DLC for Fo3 or NV, besides maybe The Pitt, because it just rolls with the setting. It basically "we know exactly what kind of setting we have" the DLC, and it was great for it..... except that nearly hour long unavoidable dialog scene with the Think Tank at the beginning(who the *bleep* thought that was a good idea?)

While I am not a fan of Ulysses, as Ulysses' logic is totally ass and nonsense, I do agree with Avellone's basic desire to re-nuke everything, not only to prevent the world from becoming boring with nothing to do, but also as a sort of prophecy fulfillment.

GTA and Saints Row have only the flimsiest possible plot for Pew Pew and upgrades. The story is at best, inane, as is its lore and in setting logic when compared even with FO3.

It limits it for us who want to play as gay characters.

Because even if we get a choice to "turn gay" through perks, we can't ignore the fact that we spent enough time with someone of the opposite six to have a child with him/her.

Which means limiting roleplay options.

Hell, that was another thing I failed to mention, we're forced to have a backstory again, but this time it's even better! Now we're forced to be in a heterosixual relationship, we're forced to have bought a house with them and forced to have had a child with them and have made long-term plans for the relationship, which 'drastically' limits the flexilibity of roleplaying options as you practically have to ignore parts of the story, plug your ears with your fingers and go "lalalalala!" whenever it comes up.

What if I want to create a character that is anti-social?

What if I want to create a character that doesn't get serious in relationships?
What if I want to create a character that was extremely troubled as a child and grew up to be quite violent towards others around her?

I can't create these kind of characters and roleplay as them any longer.

Even Fallout 3 allowed some form of roleplaying posibilities as all that was determined was who your father was and where you grew up.

According to you... but I get the impression that you believe that if they had decided to create a Mortal Kombat Farmland hybrid and call it Fallout 5, that that would be a right proper Fallout game in your opinion.

I get it. Bethesda can't please everyone tho, they played it safe.

Well, don't play if you don't like it, your choice.

Not really no.

Good. It's nice to agree on something ~even if you did so, by disagreeing.