Great suggestions so far!

First, what I like about Fallout 3, and what I hope will continue on into the next Fallout release:

-Pipboy: Easy to use, in my opinion. I also enjoy being able to freeze combat and change your equipment instantly. Very useful.

-V.A.T.S.: Helpful when being overwhelmed by many enemies. Gives the feeling that I am trained for combat and not just blindly throwing myself into it.

-Character Options: From customization to dialogue, this gave the player some sort of say in the progression of the story.

-Companions

-Camera Perspective Options


Now, what I would like to see in the next Fallout:

-New location: Many posters in this thread have mentioned other international locations. Also, how about other time periods? History often repeats itself, so how about something futuristic after civilization has begun rebuilding itself? Maybe another nuclear threat, or something else entirely. Or maybe fallouts in the US are needed again while the main character is elsewhere, leaving him behind (well, not entirely! You still need other characters )

-Character Interactions: As said in previous posts, choices that allow you to see the true consequences of your decisions would be great. Also, more intimate relationship options would be nice without them being raunchy. I liked the idea someone mentioned of a fame or notoriety level, and also the idea of camouflage within groups while wearing their clothing (much like the ghoul mask in Fallout 3.)

-Career Tree: So you want to make your character a mercenary, a trader, a relentless gunslinger? Make the option actually available with special interactions and quests. Let the player character be recognized within a certain career realm. The G.O.A.T. is not enough.

-Character Customization: It was difficult to see clearly the character I was creating at the beginning of the game, and I still felt a bit limited in some senses. Armor should be customizable. Repair isn't just for weapons and quick fixes - it could be used for improvements and advancements. Whether its completely free form or schematics related is up to question.

-Interactive Puzzles: I have to break through locks and hack through computer codes, but when it comes to Megaton's nuclear bomb I just "choose" to disarm it and ta-dah! We're saved! How anti-climatic... At least let us puzzle fiends connect and disconnect some wires. Players should feel like they're actually accomplishing something, especially when it comes to the important stuff.

-Level Cap: Level 20 is too low! Give us some room to grow.

-Map: Larger map, more towns/settlements/cities, more characters, more opportunities! Of course we all want more, but can you blame us? Let players take an active part in cities. Maybe let them run for counsel or study under an influential town figure so they can advance to a higher rank and gain more recognition within the town. Maybe allow multiple homes. (And possibly something similar to a family dynamic.)

-Platform Fairness: Don't leave PS3 users in the dark when it comes to expansions!

That reminds me, I really hope they do away with the armband Pip-Boy 3000. Since it's always clamped onto your arm like a lamprey, it really is an eyesore on some outfits, and restricts the form new ones (added by modders, for example) might take.

It's just a gimmick. There's no need for the arm thing, just open a Pip-Boy menu when you press the menu button, et voila.

Night vision? Maybe just a night vision scope on a sniper rifle...the power armor helmets seem to have flashlights on them, I wish we could use those.

Yes, yes!

The Republic of Dave was a neat idea... to see that on a great scale, and with a more serious tone, could be awesome as well... exploring a dictatorship. in other words, as well as your feudal system. It would be really neat to walk into a large city or town like Megaton (or ideally larger) and choose to either work for or work to unseat a brutal dictator.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of, too. It just seems like a natural societal progression in that sort of a setting. People are going to huddle together for protection, and the most well-equipped force is going to be able to support a larger group of "peasants" to provide their basic needs. (Not to mention that a bunch of farmers out in the middle of nowhere aren't going to last long against Raiders, Supermutants, and feral mutated animals without some sort of protection.

And yeah, the other scenario would be working backwards from that development to arrive at the same situation. That being a heavily-armed force taking over an existing settlement (even by forcing out the previous band of warriors,) and installing themselves as the defacto leaders. Forcing the civilians to gather resources for them in exchange for protection (and also in not killing the lot of them.) That's even something that a band of raider would naturally arrive at. (A small band of Raiders roaming the countryside, and experiencing a snowball effect - as their numbers grow they're able to take on bigger targets, but the logistics of keeping up a force of reasonable size increases in proportion to their numbers: they have to continue raiding larger and larger targets just to keep themselves supplied. Until you reach a critical mass where it's actually easier to settle down in a permanent area - it become easier to settle into the last big settlement you've raided than it would be to move all those supplies and forces to another area.) So in that example, you'd have a dictatorship run by Raiders and the like, ruling over a subjugated population (which is basically the setup from The Postman, when you get right down to it...)

Back in my tabletop days, we used to play a lot of Twilight:2000, and this sort of thing happened quite a bit, as well in our campaigns. You have a band of warlords ruling over a fiefdom - a bunch of guys with big guns who were the most recent winners of what's basically a violent game of King of the Hill. They think they're doing pretty good into someone rolls one of the last functioning tanks rolls into town and decides he's going to be the ruler for now. The civilians basically just try to keep out of the stray bullets and hope the next guy isn't any worse than the one before him.

It would open up a lot of storyline possibilities. And give a useful framework for setting up the layout of the world map. As well as making the place feel more "believable," and "immersive" - the latter playing to one of Bethesda's strengths in the first place. It'd kill multiple birds with one stone, basically. And it wouldn't even take that much extra effort - simply requiring that they go that extra step in conceptualizing these places.

Raiders attack other raiders though.

But yeah, I agree with that sort of faction and identity disguising concept.

Also it would be nice if things like power armor illicited a different response, like in Fallout 2, where kids would flee in terror and bouncers would be too scared to tell you not to wear it in the casino, literally everyone in New Reno would have comments like "how do you go to the bathroom in that thing?" or "you couldn't pay me enough chips to get it on with you in THAT."

Hey big fan of fallout 3 I love it. I stated this in the past and I loved all the fallouts.. Would be cool to have CO-op in fallout but im sure that will never happen...

So my real suggestion is that you put more into the character you create.. I mean Males and Females get different dialogue leads .. I know there were some but not many gender directed convesations. *Fallout 1 didn't have them either then fallout 2 made them exsist.

Big fan of the power of persaution, and fallout 3 lacked the ability to talk your way out of situations with perhaps flirting or seduction. (I dont mean perverted stuff... unless you like that) I remember in the 2nd fallout you were able to sleep with the husbands wife in new reno and wake up to loot the vault... Hrmm seems games got a bit toned down since then

Perhaps more cities and more do do inside them as well... maybe if we are lucky your introduce a vehicle ( although you never got to drive it in fallout 2 )

How about if you play as a woman you can choose how big your boobs are? Bigger boobs mean higher charisma but less carrying capacity. Just a thought.

Lonely are you?

Not particularly. It was actually a girl I live with who came up with the idea.

In that case, the two of you must be a couple of real intellectuals to come up with such a creative suggestion.

Bigger 'boobs' don't mean higher charisma. :shrug: (IE. Charisma has little to do with being attractive ~though it does factor into appearance). Consider Cheech Marin, not to insult, but few would consider him a "supermodel"... no one [I think] would consider him uncharismatic... and the same would apply to Ellen Degeneris, and Buddy Hacket, and Christopher Llyod.

Are Britney Spears and Paris Hilton Charismatic? How about Miley Cyrus?
(I've seen them interviewed and neither one them appeared so to me.)

I guess I could see having a "boob" slider, but I think it might be nice to have a bunch of body sliders in the first place - for both sixes, of course; and chest size being just one of them.

But yeah, it's not like a girl's chest is inherently tied to their attractiveness anyway. Not to objectify women; but I think both Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley are equally attractive women - would I take appearance or charisma points away from Keira Knightley just because she's not as... "stacked" as Scarlett Johansson? Myself, I wouldn't...

I could see stats affecting things like musclularity, weight, maybe even some animations, etc. But I don't think any of that's going to be tied to bust size, either.

Interestingly enough... That's not the what the studio felt when they made King Arthur, and had her on the official poster for the film...
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/KeiraKnightley1.jpg

If they did implement slider values for all the attributes, that would make randomized NPC bodies a cinch, and allow for the greatest player customization yet. ~and net them a thousand exploitative youtube videos in the process

(and a nifty Weird Science reference to boot )

I would be for a boob slider if it actually made people respond differently to you, depending on where you set it. I would also be for much more six and nudity in the game, but only if it had social reprecussions and interesting dialogue/plot behind it.

Agreed.

Imagine if there was the option to impersonate a ships crewmen, and it was difficult to impossible with the max setting, but easier with the minimum.

(*That's a scene from YellowBeard )

T&A does help with charisma to some degree, as does height, body type, an all other visual appearance "qualities". Interestingly enough, briast size, in terms of first encounters, is often inversely proportional to the PRESUMPTION of intelligence, both among men and women.

What... the body has only so many "special points" and putting more in one leaves less for the other?

(You know... I'd not be too surprised if that were somewhat true , though its a depressing thought if it were.)

Appearance is not directly linked ~well... I should say Attractiveness is not directly linked to charisma. There are too many charismatic celebrities and public figures that are not at all attractive, and a similar number of uncharismatic figures that are.

*In fact... there are PnP RPG's that separate Charisma from physical appearance/beauty.

NPCs having a stance to you based on how you look, if you've got guns showing would be a nice feature.

Does FO3 do that already? I dunno, but I would not be surprised if the NPC's fled if your PC had a high damage weapon and they did not, or a non-leveled NPC sees your high level PC attacking them. (I haven't played enough to know ~but I have seen Talon Mercs run on sight from my level 8 PC that carried a 125 DMG rifle.)

Hm I never noticed that, the raiders or any other hostile NPC just rushed me - only recall one running away at low health (either that or was just bugged out). In any case, affecting an NPC's disposition to you (get a discount or make him distrust you, etc.) was what I was aiming at. Hey, then there'll be a point to playing dressup, sort of.

I was talking bout real life.

Although, wouldn't it be interesting if stat selection affected avatar appearance?

Yeah, I remember there was a big to-do about that. (I think even with... I think it was The Duchess, where she wasn't happy about them wanting to do that...)

Yeah, I think I came across a study talking about that. I have to admit, if I'm being honest, my first impressions would probably be biased in much the same way, as well. (If I met a girl with giant cleavage all hanging out, or with an obvious "boob job," I probably wouldn't assume she had a doctorate or anything. Even if intellectually I know that's not necessarily the case.)

Realistically, though, as a red-blooded male, I think you do eventually run into diminishing averages after a certain point, though. A larger bust size might be good for a couple of "points," but I don't think it's also "necessary" for a character with a 10 CHA to be, well, "top heavy." (Actually, that's a (minor) problem I had with The Movies - the only way to raise your Starlets' Appearance score was to give them massive boobs, and conversely any actress with a high Appearance would always have a giant bust.)

True, some of my more favorite rulesets separate it into two classes - Appearance is for first impressions (and doesn't even have to mean "sixiness," either - like an average-looking guy who takes care of himself and dresses in nice clothes is going to have a decent Appearance score, for example.) And Charisma would be for more extended engagements. Alternately, some rulesets recommend using the average of the two values for certain situations. (Though that's probably not something I would expect Fallout to do, either...)

As was I. (I used "special points", for lack of a real word, and partly joking.)


**unrelated... I actually used to play an RPG that did in fact have "Bio-Energy" points that let you develop the body in specific ways.
(some of you will know it by name :ninja:)

Yes it would ~and could, rather easily I'd bet.

The game LOKI uses Gamebryo as well, but a major difference from FO3, is that it has every stage of the PC in the same Nif (model). This seems to hint that it might be possible to have a given build/of body for each combination of stat (though that's not the best way I think). ~Still... They could have a base human (either as one Nif or many), and just "equip" a different skin for its matching stats (to a point). All the humans have the same two skeletons right? (one or two ~or was that Oblivion).

I want to say TMNT/Palladium, but it's been decades...

I think that would be a nice feature. (I mean, Fable 1 was able to morph character models along something like 4 variables, so it'd at least be possible in theory for Fallout 4.)

I think my ideal setup would be starting out by picking your stats, which would determine your "base" body morph, with the ability to tweak that during character creation. (Could be neat if your morphed a bit if you raised your starting attributes in-game, as well - but we're usually only talking about a couple points-worth, so it wouldn't drastically change from what you'd already built during character creation.)