I definitely support this idea. Moreover, accessing inventory/pipboy also shouldn't pause the game.

Why?

Why?

I think it adds to immersion seeing some movement behind my conversation. Theres really not much more to it than that (at least for me).

Better dialogue as part of an open game is different than better dialogue in a story driven game. So i'd like to see better dialogue, but i don't want the game turning into an Obsidian like story crawl with little to do besides the story.

There are just complications involved with that. Mainly to do with combat and scripted events etc. I'd be concentrating on the conversation personally.

I see where you're coming from, I'm just of the opinion that realism should only be implemented if it enhances gameplay in some way. Provided it doesn't bring its own complications.

Eh? I'd assume better dialogue was synonymous with all forms of dialogue. You've played FO1/2, so from that you'd know what to expect from Obsidian (more or less) in terms of open-centric and story-centric gameplay. I am of the opinion that based on the originals, and what was planned for VB, that Obsidian understand the concept of balance very well.

I would like it where you could continue the game after "finishing" it. I also think it'd be cool if you could somehow form your own cities, towns, forts, caravans (or the ability to join one) etc.

Van Buren was Fallout 3, just a canceled one. But the cancelation doesn't make it a "Fallout 2.5".

Was /= is. I don't ahve to call it Fallout 2.5...in fact it's nothing...just another cancelled piece of unfinished work. It has no status, except for folks who long for the past. Fallout 3 is Fallout 3. VB is nothing.

Actually beths fallout is Fallout: brotherhood of steel 2. If you want to be precise
(fortunately, the series is not plagued -yet- by three reiterations of console shooter calamity for short attention span crowd)

I counted the canceled FOBOS2.

at least this would explain why you HAVE TO work with BoS in the end...
and I wouldn't consider VB as a part of the Fallout saga either.. if it was something at all, it was a bad demo.

suggestions for Fallout 4:

-no more Enclave, please. the Enclave was already extincted in FO2

-maybe more sects (according to Hubology ). room for more alternatives

-less effect of the pc's reputation to interaction with npcs and factions. as if everbody in the wasteland would know/care about a total wasteland-noob... (the whole GNR thing svcked btw...)

-NO MORE IMMORTAL CHARACTERS - it's total nonsense! if you can't create a main quest string that doesn't rely on particular persons, don't create one at all! (immortal children are ok though. unless they start to shot you )

-the aftermaths of (at least some) side quests should flow in the retrospect (like in FO1 & 2)

The "bad demo" was just an early pre-alpha tech demo made during early stages of development to demonstrate the engine internally. It wasn't very indicative of what the final product would look like.

might ve been already mentioned but please oh please, more varied and better animations. This will not only look neat but also increase the immersion and make the characters more believable.

here's another thing I was bothered by in every Fallout release yet.. and that's the bad translation from english to german (and I guess the translations to any other language weren't that good as well).
I know, I know.. it's time-consuming and expensive to get proper translations. but a game like Fallout, that relies on language, gets you easily pissed, if you have to adress formally to children, while they're adressing unformally to you, for example. not to mention the loss of the original wordplay.
I would understand if one said "tough luck, if you aren't able to speak english" (since nowadays even first grade pupils learn it at school [at least over here]).. but there should be a change anyway. and be it the possibility for e.g. german consumers to choose between german and english language.

How about different playable races? IE Human, ghoul, android, etc.

Introduce S.P.E.C.I.A.L.S.-system

The added S stands for 'Soul'.

It's not really a attribute but more of a choice that you make whether the emotions you carry around with you most.
Percentual choices between

Disgust - Whether the player is easily disgusted of something/someone (unable to get the bloody mess perk, able to spit in someone's face by disgust and convince them their actions are corrupt)
Fear - Whether the player is easily scared (unable to do some dirty work quests, higher natural perception)
Sadness - Whether the player get more easily sad by certain events (ex. Dogmeat dies: -1 endurance, -1 strength for 2 days and sad replies to conversations, but gets more empathy from NPC's when in this condition giving the player a chance to convince them more easily: effects barter, speech and no penalty for stealing little value things)
Joy - Whether the player is a happy person or not (unable to reply with harsh words in most cases, so no intimidation in conversations. Able to avoid some combat with humans and +1 endurance, +1 strength)
Anger - Whether the player is easily angered (unable to talk when angered, +2 Agility, +2 Strength, +2 Endurance for very limited time)
Acceptance - Whether the player is bothered easily or not by the harsh reality (unable to point people at their mistakes, needs more karma to be a good person, needs less karma to be evil due to the fact he doesn't show any emotions easily, good choice for a neutral player)

Ofcourse these are just examples of the effects you could get, and no good balancing. But I felt this was missing, because the system doesn't really let you choose any mental abilities.

Urgh... this sounds pretty bad. Maybe for a fantasy game, but not Fallout.

And stuff like that should be simply determined by your dialogue choices.

Get Obsidian to design/develop it.

/thread




Wrong. Bethesda used material (and referenced more) from VB in Fallout 3 and it's DLC.

To be fair, Van Buren wasn't looking too good either. Co-op multiplayer, a dual combat system(those never work out...), Speech getting split up....

Enclave, Enclave, Enclave, or atleast people that survived the possivle destruction of it.
The best bad guy in video gaming history must not fall!

It was as it was titled, a tech demo. It wasn't made to be seen by the public only internally at interplay in hopes of getting green-lighted. Hence some of the missing textures in the exterior tileset area. But in the end Herve didn't approve it. Even though it was guaranteed to grant Interplay much needed revenue.



What do you mean?



Arcanum had a dual combat system which actually out worked nicely.

I wasn't talking about nor could even begin to start caring about the technical limitations of a tech demo.


Speech was to be split up into two different skills, "Deception" and "Persuasion".



Of all the things Arcanum did right, combat wasn't one of them. It was easily the worst aspect of the entire game. The turn-based alternative wasn't tactically intriguing like Fallout's, nor was the action gameplay fun like isometric action-RPGs of the time. Both options dragged each other down.

Quoted for truth.



Also introduce different body types for people please. As in, skinny people, really skinny people, really really skinny people and midgets perhaps Everyone looks the same except for racial distinctions.

What's so bad about it? There's plenty of combat skills, why can't there be two speech ones?

As for combat, Van Buren's default mode was going to be turn-based, and the game was going to be balanced for it. The real-time mode was there just to please Herve Caen, just like the co-op mode.



Van Buren was going to have these.



And Obsidian is likely to use even more of it in New Vegas.

I wasnt a fan of all that killer satellite endgame nonsense in VB - although the choices were intersting, I dont think it was fallouty to go to a satelite.

I did like the split of speech though.