That would be the reason to do it. You would remove the reason to do it?

That's a peeve with me; no one stays competitive with a 9x markup; and no one would choose to buy from them instead of someone else. The difference should be based on scarcity and demand. If they have one suit of combat armor, it can be 15,000... but if they (and every other trader) have 25 suits, then the price would come down sharply, and best serve the one who undercut the others first.

No. We could buy something of low value for this. Bullets and stuff.

Well, then what about Barter? If money is easy to make, then what advantage could Barter bring to the table? Except economy of time. What you say is true and should be accomplished nontheless.

Maybe it has already been addressed somewhere in discussion, but I would be curious to hear a rundown of speculations/predictions of what Fallout 4 will be.

How big will the game world be?

Will there be a greater focus on story?

...a greater focus on world interaction?

How will it compare with previous games?

How might the game surprise us?

How might it reinvent Fallout?

etc, etc

So the question is not so much, "What would you like to see in the game?" but rather, "What are we probably going to get?"

All raiders in the game should be a part of their own little mini-factions, factions which you should be able to reach a friendly level with so that you won't get attacked by them.

Raiders should also initiate dialogue first which the player should be able to talk his/her way out of being attacked.

And speech/barter can't be the only solution to every single one of them.

With some raider ambushes you should have to sell out another caravan you encountered down the road or say that you're able to cook chems and offer to sell the chems to them for a discount. So long as you provide them with caps your reputation will stay still or increase but if you go too long without selling them chems your reputation may drop. Or use sneak to give up only 20% of your caps and keep the rest, deceiving them into thinking that's all you got.

Just don't do the generic crap where they just attack you. It's been a boring design since the first game that they 'all' just attack you without at least initiating dialogue.

There are absolutely no concrete (not many ambiguous either) details about Fallout 4.

1. But Bethesda has been making aproximately the same size of gameworld since Oblivion so expect it to be the same.

2. Bethesda's writing has been bad for a long time and they care more about exploration and "do what you wanna do whoop whoop!" than the story, so I doubt they will prioritize the story.

3. If they put any greater focus on world exploration then Fallout might just end up like Minecraft. Meaning; It'll be the same as before, more or less.

4. It will most likely, in my jaded opinion, be worse.

5. Unless Fallout 4 suddenly goes back to its roots there isn't anything that could possibly be surprising. Bethesda thrives in familiarity and streamlining.

6. Pet deathclaws.

7. We're most likely going to get the same game as last time. A primarily black and white storyline that reuses plot elements of previous Fallout games (I suspect they'll use Tactics this time around) with no shame. A game where the lore is changed willy nilly as Bethesda can't be arsed to stick to established lore and want to retcon everything. A game who's setting feels like it takes place in an uninhabitable hell-hole and makes no effort to explain it. They will want to streamline the experience of Fallout even further so don't expect mechanics from FNV to make a return and it wouldn't be surprising at all if they removed SPECIAL or something and replaced it with a more streamlined stat system.

That is probably what we're going to get. Judging by how Bethesda treats their games we're going to get Skyrim With Guns.

/cynicism off

Seriously though, Bethesda hasn't made any progress when it comes to RPG design and they've made themselves clear to not really care about their franchises and want the players to be able to do whatever they want to so what do you honestly think we're going to get? Bethesda knows what sells and that is what they will cater to. If streamlining the experience even further sells more copies then they'll do it. They're not going to risk the development and marketing budget of a triple-A title on experimentation. Skyrim sold really well, so guess what? Fallout will be more like Skyrim.

Then again, we don't know anything about Fallout 4. Maybe the reason why they allowed Obsidian to do FNV is because they want to make a clear distinction between the franchises but they want to see what will sell. Since FNV was financially successful they might start to lean Fallout more towards its design. But Bethesda aren't exactly known for good writing, quest design, character design, consequences for your actions, excluding the player out of content based on choices they make, explaining 'why' certain things are designed the way they are or handling the lore with respect so I wouldn't expect anything but Skyrim With Guns really.

@Gabriel77Dan Thanks for the response. F3 is the only Beth game I have played, so I was wondering how the Fallout series (of Beth) might progress, based on the progression of the Elder Scrolls games.

Fallout 4 will be terrible and will have paid mods, day one DLC, and all that. And it will still sell like hot cakes. I've come to terms with that fact.

Anyhow, is the E3 conference still the best bet for an announcement? Do you think they'll do an actual full trailer, instead of a five second teaser?

I prefer to have a more positive outlook on fallout 4 I don't think it will be terrible at all and hopefully won't have paid mods either!
Take a deep breath and smile.....

I don't expect a terrible game, I just expect Skyrim 2.0 in the retro apocalypse; and if it were anything but a branded Fallout game, I'd be wholly on board for it.

But you wouldn't be here, no?

I couldn't care less for the name. For me it's about the content. A 'typical Bethesda formula' game just doesn't cut it for me. I want more! Rethink your formula and then rework it. Go back to the basics of what games truly mean.

Look Todd, we aren't new to games anymore. You can't amaze me with predictable stuff, visuals or time-consuming pseudo-gameplay.

I'm fine with any game; just not [sanctioned] impostors. Certain names imply certain aspects, and when they are absent, it doesn't matter what cool substitute is provided.

(If you order a Waldorf, would you accept a Nacho plate?)

I think Skyrim 2.0 in the retro apocalypse would be grand, as a new IP; not as part of the Fallout IP.

I'd like to see them do the Palladium RIFTS setting with a treatment like that; but not Fallout.

RIFTS by Bethesda could really be superb.
https://www.google.com/search?q=palladium+rifts&source=lnms&tbm=isch

Wouldn't you fare better then if you'd suggest renaming the game from 'Fallout 4' to 'Fallout: The Bethesdian Tales" or something?

I mean all your problems would be solved. Just probability-wise, this would be much more likely than Bethesda going back to iso or whatever else you proposed.

I mean you'd like The Bethesdian Tales, wouldn't you? You couldn't accuse it of being an impostor.

Would have been great. I think Fallout fans would have been fine with a spin off; and everyone else wouldn't have cared what it was called to begin with; or know the difference.

I've never understood use of the name to sell to an audience that admittedly wouldn't know it from first hand experience... Unless it was for the reputation... but FO3 doesn't implement what established the reputation; (Bethesda doesn't want to).

See? Instead of your metaphors, you could reside to demanding a name change. This would require less typing. Just make it your sig (explicitly, so you don't have to explain yourself). You could then post irrelevant [censored] all day. I mean this would be a far better tactic, since content doesn't matter to you anyway, only nametags.

I'll stick to the relevant stuff; and besides, they can't change the name now. They are in the same boat as Black Isle was before them; they have an established game with a market expecting a faithfully apt sequel. It'd be just as bad to change it again.

What about Bioshock: Infinite, which came after Bioshock 2?

I'd love to see a central theme btw. 'Fallout: Reason' or 'Fallout: Mundane' would be nice. 'Fallout: Carefree' or 'Fallout: Airplanes' would be bad though.

I'd say that's fairly realistic. I'm simply hoping for a game that will run better than NV, takes itself a bit more seriosly than Fallout 3 (with its lack of intelligent context for in-game logistics), and more gray factions that I can join or destroy (ie New Vegas)

The ability to join the Enclave would also be appreciated...

That's exactly why Bethesda is worth many millions right now, that they always change the formula inbetween games, and its why they piss off that extremely small section of gamers who cannot handle change and demand that everything be the same.

If they were not commited to changing things to make a better game we would never have got a game like Morrowind, and the company would have never got enough money to buy the Fallout IP.

Think about it. Daggerfall was all about randomly generated everything, and that would not come back in any way for many years. In Daggerfall a standard quest may assign you to kill a orc chieftan, and you would fast travel and land at a random dungeon that was generated and not designed, and would fight anywhere from bears, bats, rats, to other orcs before barreling down to the heart of the dungeon and taking out the orc chieftan. That being if you were lucky and every had not glitched out to the point where the chieftan was behind a inaccesible part of the dungeon, or had flat out spawned outside the world into the void.

Does that sound anything like Morrowind? In Morrowind the world is hand-designed, and full of detail, with designers making dungeons instead of computer algorithims. Some things had remained, like the dice roll combat and text-based dialogue, but the world was now populated with actual characters, and not random people who had every part of themselves generated when you went into town. And yes, back in 2002 the exact same people said that all of these changes were "Dumbing down", "streamlining", or that it was "Console trash".

This has repeated itself every time there's been a new release, with the exception of New Vegas. in Oblivion there was no dice roll combat, and people were fully voiced, and had the radiant AI that was so hyped. in Fallout 3, there was VATS, and a huge focus on a small quantity of high quality quests. And again in Skyrim, the quest system from Daggerfall made a small comeback, with huge experimentation on non-linear and non-scripted reactivity.

The games will change from release to release, and Fallout 4 will be no different. It may be a big or a small change, but there will be changes nontheless. People act as if Bethesda has been stamping out the same game every single time since 1994, but the truth is the complete opposite.

Enclave: =/ But they have been so done to death (literally). They aren't cats with nine lives.

As for the bottle cap argument: It's been at least three years since Fallout 3. If the game exists in a tech based region like MIT, it would stand to reason they would have created and successfully implemented a more realistic currency like I dunno.. paper money?

Issues with the towns/cities/residences: Again if it's a Boston game, then I suggest the area to be similar to Vault City. They have massively advanced technologies to create androids and slave labor, so there shouldn't be any of the rubble EVERYWHERE and filthy disgusting residences that are ready to fall apart (with skeletons in their bathtubs). Reasonable defenses would mark the exterior of a raised wall of concrete or stone (not slapped together with pieces of sheet metal like Megaton).

Humans built the pyramids and incredible places like Rome through the work of HUMAN slaves. Wouldn't it be reasonable for android slaves (presumably stronger than humans) to create just as spectacular infrastructures with our advances technologies and sciences in far less time?

With their plentiful resources they could also establish robot patrols to eliminate dangers in surrounding settlements. For their protection they could extort taxes from the settlements. It would only make sense for advanced irrigation systems and thus increased produce production and agriculture.

Conclusion: Bethesda shot themselves in the foot with the Commonwealth if they wanted to make another game like Fallout 3 in the Boston area. Based on what we know so far, it should be a well off civilization with advanced technologies, agriculture, slave labor, far less dangerous, better economic systems, etc.

Edited to include PA argument: I would agree with General Garbage (I think it was General Garbage at least) about a huge detriment to sprinting. Part of the reason that Olympic and track runners can run so fast is because of the way they move their bodies. Regardless of PA being seemingly weightless for the wearer, the bulky exterior would prevent the wearer from being able to sprint effectively because of the limit to their range of motion. A jog should pretty much be the extent of the range of motion PA would provide. There should also be a substantial sneak penalty. The benefit is that once PA is donned, it should remove the weight of armor and increase total weight limit.

The phrase "Change or die" echoes here.

Fallout 4 needs to be its own thing--long established themes, factions, gameplay, tone and canonical occurrences have to be recognized however. I'm cautiously optimistic about the next Fallout but as long as those items are kept intact and consistent with previous titles, id be satisfied.

It's not change, it's detrimental change; there is a big difference.

No one has asked for a Fallout 2 clone, nor 2D; some not even for the proper turn based combat of the series. The main discontent is that FO3 was designed with more concern for the simulation than the series traditional [expected] priorities.
look at TES... Arguably TES's priority has always been going for an interactive, "what you'd see if you were there" experience, and that is seen in every TES game (that I have played). Changes that move towards furthering that goal are beneficial.

Look at FO3 [and presumably FO4]... putting aside the careful interplay of stats and reliant mechanics, Fallout was an RPG centered on accountability and the ethics of a post apocalypse. The player could do anything they wanted ~so long as the PC was personally capable of it, and that they would have to accept the outcome of past fate and fortune, as well as their choices. First off the game [FO3] lets you entirely redesign your character ~after interacting with the vault. Then once outside the vault, you instantly level up, and optionally increase a Stat point. Stats were choices you were committed to for most of the game in Fallout, they DEFINED your character's wits/limits/and resources; now (and thereafter) they have become mutable option at every level, along with free perks. Perks were asides of the rules; a slight bending of them for the PC's special benefit... and they were sparse. They were affecting, and happened every three to four levels. This is established gameplay they were screwing with. In FO3 Perks became free stat points every level, and later they added a perk that raised all stats to 9. The importance of stat points was reduced; now easily changed, no longer a commitment or limitation that forced the PC to find other ways to achieve their goals. In the series one's reputation indicated their past actions; in FO3, it usually indicated aqua-philanthropy.
The game forgets committed actions on a schedule. The player does not have to live with the PC's past; they can shoot people and return later for idle chit-chat; even buy food from them.

Your comment implies [accuses] curmudgeonry for no other reason than that it's different, and ignores the facts and effects of those differences ~detrimental... anti-Fallout differences that flip the series on its head, polar opposite to what it's supposed to value. It's not supposed to value the world sim over accountability and commitment. Those should be paramount above all else; including some player's dislike of being refused their whims during the game. A Fallout game says 'No' when appropriate; FO3 never says 'no', only 'not yet'.

You've got to be joking. You really think this group of dissident gamers just wants to have the same game with no new changes or improvements? Are you reading this thread? All I've been reading is nothing but advice and suggestions for improvement and changes to make the game more enjoyable in their eyes, and some of them are good ideas.

I don't consider myself one of those gamers. I enjoyed Fallout 3 and New Vegas, and I want to see Bethesda improve the design of the game, but defending the choices they've made in Fallout 3 isn't going to bring about any kind of change. Being that Fallout 3 belongs to the same franchise as Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, I think it's very important to go back to these games and see what actually worked and what they could bring back.

What exactly does a phrase like "I would posit that if the ideal Fallout is something other than Fallout, then it cannot be the ideal Fallout", mean if it isnt saying that the only acceptable Fallout is the same as Fallout 1, complete with turn based and isometric gameplay?

It means that Fallout should be the foundation upon which to build; not the paint to decorate it with.

Would that foundation also include turn based and isometric gameplay?

You've said constantly for the past 7 years that the changes "Aren't bad because they are bad, but bad because they are changing what is Fallout". Are you no longer thinking those things? Are you also not thinking that videogames are the same as functional tools like a hammer, that cannot be changed without changing what its functional purpose is, to not being a hammer anymore?

This is a serious question. You haven't said anything to the effect of "Nobody is asking for 2d/isometric" in the few years that ive been here.