Has anyone else read that the game will be made for the PS4 and XBox1 and then PORTED to the PC?

I'm a PC player and prefer it due to mods more than anything else ... well that and the fact I'm not using the family TV to play while they are wanting to watch a show. But I've yet to really play a game that's been PORTED to the PC that didn't have some issues because of it. Some were minor, others nearly made the game unplayable.

So do you think that's what PC players will get with FO4, a port?

The game is pretty sure developed on PC (Morrowind/Oblivion/FO3/NV/Skyrim where).

So actually the console versions are ports (a lot of things are changed downscaled for consoles in FO3/NV as can be seen in GECK). Still as we have seen with Skyrim Bethesda designs the UI with consoles in mind and use them on PC too which isn't a good thing but at least the higher resolutions on PS4/XBO helps a bit.

I just saw on a different website about Fallout 4 being released in May of 2016....this goes a long way from the original idea that I thought the game was going to be released in Holiday of 2013 when the rumours started flying at that time....at least its something... but seriously we just have to wait until E3 to get the confirmation....

I agree with you. Not every quest should or needs to be a timed quest, but it is impossible to have a quest with a sense of urgency without it being timed.

Well I agree that sometimes not having a timer makes no sense at all. Like you are supposed to met someone at a location to start a side quest, and you ignore it and wait half a game year before showing up. Then when you get there the NPC just starts the quest without so much as mentioning that they've been standing in that one spot for six months waiting on you.

However, on the other hand I like doing things at my own pace in an Open World game. That's a big part of the games draw for me. I'm not playing at the games set pace, but my own pace. And I guess what I'm saying is that I want to play without urgency.

One problem I have seen in games that give timers to the quests is that they sometimes can allow you to accept several quests at once and you can get yourself into a position where you suddenly can't finish them all in time. Often you can say this is your own fault but sometimes quests are given without you really asking for them ... you just happen to talk to some NPC without knowing that would suddenly trigger a timed quest.

But I suppose ultimately I do not play TES and FO games for urgency. I'd play something like ME if I wanted that.

Well, it seems to me you don't want to accept any consequences. Nobody is forcing you to complete a timed quest, you just need to accept the consequences of not doing so. Otherwise, what is the point of playing RPGs where your characters decisions are supposed to matter.

Bethesda's skewed interpretation of FO games; traditionally the Fallout series has always included timed events and the possibility of failure. It's a sad loss (among many) IMO. You mention playing ME for something like that, but that was the Fallout series as well. There were several instances in the series where ignoring the time caused either the PC's death, NPC deaths, or just have the game give up on the player and quit. Sadly all sense of urgency is now lost to the series, and unlikely to return; as it seems against policy in gamesas games.

I want consequences for my actions, not my inactions. I don't mind some timed stuff, especially like what I said before when it makes sense. But I don't want to be forced to go from one timed quest to another without any time to just role-play and experience the open game world.

Consequence should come from inaction. As I recall, the original Necropolis location in Fallout could be decimated even before the PC ever arrived ~if they waited too long, or discovered it late.

Myself, I would prefer to see not just timed quests, but timed quests deliberately given such that it should be nigh impossible to complete both in the allotted time; (but not impossible; though perhaps unlikely ~due to occasionally randomized events).

One can easily imagine a town in an RPG, that has a problem that gets worse over time; and the time starts at the beginning of the game, and it must be found out about, then located. That town's situation could get more dire by the day, and if one waits long enough ~no town left; or the town left (scattered). Certainly some traveler should not sit by his wagon (with the broken wheel) for months after first encountered; awaiting a samaritan.

Dragon Age IIRC, did time the side requests for aid; like ambushes; you could dally about, and arrive to a dead caravan being looted. I do think that the primary campaign should not be structured such as to be impossible to complete for being late; but I am not opposed to the game thinning the options by which it can be done... Such that certain paths to resolution get locked out due to player actions or inactions.

For once I agree with Gizmo. There needs to be some timed quests, whether a part of the overall MQ or not can be debated, but there needs to be something. Consequences for action or inaction should be a part of the game. As I said in another post, the SQ could be a message received or overheard in bar about an impending attack on a town or settlement. You can decide to go and help the defenders, the attackers or just sit by and let it play out and then go in and clean up afterwards.

I would welcome with open arms a quest system that had true consequences that could then effect replayability (seems autocorrect doesn't like that word!). There is a very limited consequence system in FO3, but only in respect to blowing up or un-arming the Megaton bomb, enslaving people or what have you. What 3 and NV lack are true consequences that make you decide right NOW to do something. Every decision in 3/NV can be put off indefinitely with no consequence to you whatsoever. How realistic is that??

I too want the flexibility to put some things off until I get good and ready to do them, but there needs to be time based quests that will help to take you deeper into the game from a RPG standpoint.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

There is one series that I recall, (though not truly an RPG), where instead of level scaling, the game tracks the [certain] NPCs and handles their combat encounters with other NPCs statistically. The result is that the game allows NPCs in the world to level up on their own as chance would have it. This also affects the open world in an interesting way, because you don't just get more powerful NPC threats ~those weaker threats get killed off, and the survivor is a stronger threat for it. It also means that if the PC runs from a fight, the opponent still gets a measure of XP from the encounter, and if they level up, then the next encounter with them will see their improvements put to use in the battle.

This could work well in an RPG. When a player eventually gets to a place that once had many low-level threats, they instead encounter the survivors who are a far more experienced threat.

(That doesn't preclude the arrival of new inexperienced threats. Those would populate the land, and serve to further improve the higher level enemies there.)

Timed quests and events can help make a world that isn't static.
As someone who alo likes the exploration and played F3 exclusively for about 3 years, I go with having timed quests that affect the game through action and inaction for that reasoning.
I would love for the game world to change, not just because of what I have done, but what I never got around to (and so long as it isn't MQ, that I may not have even known about, because i was busy elsewhere).

It leads to more replay value if you can't do everything in one go; you can play multiple playthroughs that are relatively fresh, exploring how the world is different.

^ This exactly 100%. I want to see quests in Fallout 4 if bandits invade a village and if that village does not have some very good defense if the NPC's in that village are weak and I decide to go and not kill those bandit NPC's . If I come back later to that village those bandit NPC's should of taken over the village and killed all of those defenseless NPC's in that village, have like 1 NPC or 2 NPC's who managed to successful run away.

Fallout 4 needs more timed quests, I'm not saying Fallout 4 needs hundreds of timed quests, just I want quite a few timed quests. You know make the video game world feel a little bit more realistic not static.

You are making timed quests an "All or Nothing" prospect. Like, every quest is a timed quest, which you imply with your post, "go from one timed quest to another".

That isn't how they are. I don't think I have ever played a game where every quest was timed, and even in FO1, it was a fraction of the total quests which were timed.

No one is suggesting that all quests be timed. Only that quests which represent a sense of urgency be timed. Should the MQ be timed? I don't think the entire MQ should be timed, but I think certain parts of the MQ could be, if upon the MQ one encountered an area of urgency.

There is this big misconception that timed quests let the player miss something. Which is nonsense if done right. In contrary it can add a lot and gives oppertunities.

Fallout 1 didn't execute them very well in this regard imo. (maybe it would have been better with more development time, the concept was nice).

I would like to see them in FO4.

Now what does that mean?

It means that presenting the player with a choice to either help or not can be a very bipolar and thus hard to correctly pull off task.

An example of timed quests: Either you do it in time, or you fail the game. The primary matter involves no decision at all; the task itself might, but you have to manage it in time in order to play further. The player is pressurized, the devil on your back will stay until you relieve yourself of this burden.

Another example that goes for any quest: Either you do it, or you're not a hero. It's basically not a choice (the archetype of 'I play a hero' or 'I don't play a hero' is set) and thus plays out like the first example - you fail, you reload.

Then there's: Either you do it or you betray a certain faction/help another. There's no choice in this particular matter - you have decide beforehand which faction you'll support. At least the time limit will not allow you to rethink faction allegiance if you've not yet made this choice.

These are streamlined experiences, but much like the character you create, there should be room for ambiguity and thus spontaneity. The decisions you make shouldn't be set in stone because you're only allowed to play a number of archetypical characters. Timed quests should really ask of us the question if we want to involve ourselves in the matter or not. There should be fun in not choosing to do anything.

Of course you have choices if you decide to do something or even if you don't. But this simply relocates the choices to another stage.

Now how can you shake up the formula a bit? One simple thing is failure. Known or unknown risks. Surprises.

You're no Witcher, no superhero and no Dragonborn. Let things happen beyond your control. Let certain affairs be beyond your abilities as a human. This is something that should go for timed and non timed quests alike. Example: You CAN'T save this town. But you CAN try. The result of this is depending on how you try, but it will be to your displeasure.

Another way is moral ambiguity and factional nonrelevance / relevance for only one faction.

You should combine all of the above. The 'do nothing and fail the game' one is optional for me.

So this might be yes, but i was wondering does anyone thinik i could play fallout 4 on normal/high with a 860m or shoudl i wait until the official recommended specs thing comes out?

I doubt you could play basically anything on high with a laptop.

In unrelated news, Bethesda talked a bit about modding, and what mods have influenced their game design.

http://www.pcgamer.com/bethesda-discusses-horse-armor-and-the-power-of-mods/
Mods can demonstrate alternative reality versions of your game,” Burgess said. He cited several key mods – including Oscuro’s Overhaul for Oblivion and Deadly Reflex for Skyrim – as influences for the team’s future work on the game.

Additionally, modders can expand on a game's universe with “less polish and no canon”, the kind of things studios are otherwise eager to nurture. Modders can explore possibilities that are otherwise off limits to the original development team, and thus reframe a game's essence in interesting ways.

Harking back to the ‘90s and his formative experiences using Duke Nukem 3D’s BUILD engine, Burgess compared the ‘90s modding heyday with modern indies, describing both as “disruptive” forces in an otherwise uptight, orthodox market. While ‘90s modders had the likes of id Software and 3D Realms championing their cause (to name a few), nowadays Unity can take a lot of credit for the flourishing indie scene, Burgess said, in the way it has helped make game development more approachable and less exclusive. He drew parallels between Unity and the modding culture of the 1990s.

With Source 2 and Unreal Engine 4 now freely available to aspiring and experienced developers alike, the climate is looking up for independent studios. But if all you want to do is make some fancy horse armor for your Skyrim steed, then you’re welcome to do that too, and Bethesda is eager to ensure that lessons learnt modding previous Elder Scrolls games will apply in the future.

If Fallout 4 is to be announced at E3 2015 then this might be a bit too late because most of the pre-production would've been finished already or a long time ago but whatever....

The premise would be most awesome if it were to begin before the "fallout". It could follow the main character (or a prologue/ancestor character) as he/she is doing a prologue questline of some sort in a city with (preferably) skyscraqers. Going to work, shopping, driving a car. Ordinary day-to-day life for a couple of in-game days to set the mood and narrative. If you work hard you get a large bonus, or you can rob a bank maybe. Do mischevious stuff or be a benevolent factor.

Then comes the warnings on the television, on big billboard ads on the wall of the skyscraqers. NPC's start to react slowly, then panic, they go wild and crazy, start plundering, start fighting, maybe even start shooting. Chaos. Then You (The Player) perhaps can even choose to enter a Vault (or fight for a ticket into a Vault) or stay outside (Choice & Consequence). Become a plunderer/scavenger when the panic & chaos hits.

Then... the sirens begin, mushrooms, rising up on the horizon. Blastwaves and shockwaves and then.....

Path A: Vault-Dweller (Paid Ticket)
- Because you managed to buy a ticket you get to enter the safety of the vault. Shockwaves, dust and earthquakes as the bombs hits and you're stuck inside the Vault. You'll be stuck inside the Vault for a bit but will be able to take command actions, strategy game-like. Perhaps order the vault inhabitants around. When venturing outside you'll want to have radiation suits and gas masks, at least the first few days.

Path B: Vault-Dweller (Stolen Ticket)
- Same thing but you managed to steal from or kill someone that had a ticket.

Path C: Vault-Chaos (Fight your way into a Vault)
- The Vaults aren't big, but if you manage to follow someone knowing where the Vault is, or find the path to the Vault, you can fight your way in amongst the chaos of the rest who wants in. This'd mean you'd fight your way through a large crowd of NPC's to get to the front.

Path D: Outside
- You didn't get into a Vault. You'll have to survive outside and risk the chance of becoming a ghoul. If you were outside when the blastwaves and shockwaves hit, the screen will turn dark and then you'll wake up with other survivors in the rubble of some destroyed building.

Ideas/Brainstorming^ of course. But I think it'd be an interesting take on it, to be able ot play the ordinary life for some time. Before the bombs hit. Later, after you've finished the "Prologue" or "Tutorial" area once, you'd be able to skip it on following playthroughs/new attempts and start off where the real deal begins.

It could also be a prologue section of an unnamed character, where the Player gets to experience the first few days of the "Fallout" and then fast forward to an ancestor down the line which you get to custom make and that's where the game begins. Even a first-person cutscene/cinematic could work really well. Just to give a narrative experience.

Oh and I seriously hope this isn't an MMO that's happening (unless it's a worldwide Fallout game with origins where you can start in Russia, Middle-East, Europe, Africa or wherever on the planet where it is still inhabitable after the nukes). That'd be pretty epic in an MMO sense.

Or if there are almost no NPC's and the Players become the sole survivors. For immersion and narrative of course. It'd also be pretty epic if the only population on the servers where Player made characters, with immersive survival elements+permadeath+some minecraft-light elements (kind of counter-intuitive MMO mechanics but... for a Fallout narrative? Oh please let it happen ).

Once you get the big "welcome to the world" reveal that Bethesda so loves to do, you shouldn't have any sense of urgency like "The only reason I left the vault was to find my dad" or "My village is dying and I'm their last hope". Maybe instead you've got "I'm the last survivor of my vault/tribe, I want answers... (or I don't, and I'm just going to thank my lucky stars and do whatever I want)". I still want to care about the main quest; New Vegas made so many of the factions and choices so morally grey that I just didn't give a damn what happened to the Mojave. Skyrim actually did this pretty well in Helgen, although they bungled it a bit for anyone who wanted to experience dragons or the better part of the civil war without being Dragonborn... (Skyrim's actually the first Bethesda game where the main quest is just a suggestion, and not a direct order that you'd kinda have to be a dike to ignore, so I'm optimistic)

@GeneralGarbage

That is a fairly simplified look on choice. However, timed quest failures does not necessarily result in failure of the game. This is one major difference between say a game like FO and GTA. In GTA, you have to complete a "mission", sometimes even under a certain time, to progress the game. In a RPG which allows for "failure" or player choice to refuse, the game doesn't end. FO1 doesn't end if you save Tandi or not. It still progresses further.

Only the MQ time limit ended the game, so failure does exist in the other non-MQ timed quests, which you stated should be an option.

Simplified, yet it includes everything quests have ever done in terms of choices, no?

I don't know, I think you would kinda have to be a dike to ignore that a dragon, which just destroyed a good sized village, was seen over another well sized village, and near the area of one of Skyrim's most important towns, and not feel any need to warn said major town that it, and the smaller ton it rules over, are in danger.

Urgency of some sort, no matter how much the game lets you ignore it, is needed imo to make the plot interesting, and to give the player motivation to do it.

Or just never enter Whiterun.

I recall many times in MW where I just laid the 'package' on the doorstep of the man I was supposed to deliver it to and went on without thinking another thing about it.

Honestly in a Open World game I much prefer the MQ to be optional anyway. Sure I'll do the MQ a few times, but many characters I played in Skyrim never bothered with it after getting the last Unrelenting Force word.

In FO3 and NV I generally dragged out the game as long as possible due to the 'end game' after you beat the MQ. At least the FO3 DLC let you keep playing.