1. We dont need to see it to know it. Just like we dont need to see an in-game scientific report that the sky is blue(assuming it was) for the same reason it is IRL. That's just being spoonfed.

2. It doesn't insta kill you, you have to drink several doses of it to die. There's also comments from at least one NPC suggesting that they believe its the purified water killing them, though they believe the cause is something other then what it actually is, which means many would stay away from it.

3. I don't see it as a weakness. Siding with a group whose only goals to kill anyone who isn't them is a pointless addition because then there would be no more game to play.

4. Except the BoS is literally nothing like that, they willingly ignore threats they could easily take out, like the slavers of Paradise Falls, the raiders of Evergreen Mills, and Talon Company, they willingly fire on non-feral ghouls without care, and only attack super mutants because they were sent to negative them in the first place. This isn't even taking into account the several hints that Lyons only wants the purifier to use it as a PR tool to get people to join his dying order, and not because he REALLY cares. This "Lyons is this ultra saint" meme its ludicrous, and ran its course ages ago. Lyons is a self-serving [censored] like all the other BoS, and only helps others when it helps him, and there's many reasons you might not want a person like that in charge of the purifier. the only way in which Lyons is different is that he does a better job of hiding his true nature.

5. the LW already sacrificed himself to save the wasteland, why not again?

....

...Vault dwellers.

I don't get why everyone's complaining about the graphics.

It feels like they had a glance at Rage, but it most certainly is not disappointing. The color will contrast with the wastes, and the atmosphere will match accordingly.

The only thing they can mess up when it comes to visuals is whether or not the saturation will feel off. The reds were a little too vibrant.

I'd really like to know what modding it is going to be like and will it still be only the GECK? Havok animation is a pain in the butt I hope there's a bit more support for that.

But it's the mutated ones I'm worried about.

The mistake was them caving into shooter fan pressure; FO games are supposed to be RPGs, and the player's actions are supposed to be significant to the outcome; and the series is notable for its cause & effect endings... Which they broke with Broken Steel.


If the mechanics are done correctly, it should be impossible to hit anything without sufficient weapons training.



The problem with Iron Sights is that they exist to allow player influenced aiming ~and that shouldn't exist in an RPG where the PC has a weapons skill that determines how well they aim.

General Winters ahh Colonel Autumn actually didn't want to use the FEV.

I'm still trying to forget that Broken Steel exists

I really don't understand why there are so many people complaining about the graphics. I mean, hell, if they care so much about graphics, they may as well go play the most recent CoD or something. Besides, it's fairly obvious that Bethesda can't focus as much on graphics as developers of a non open world RPG could.

True, but he has no reason to want to let you join his side.

Anyways, I can safely say I like many of the new design changes to things in this game.

-I like the very Robby the Robot protectrons.

-Love the new, almost dinosaur looking deathclaw.

-Like the new hulkinator power armor.

-I like how Mr Handy robot can now apparently move their eyes on a swivel, instead of being fixed in going only up/down like in Fo3 and NV.

-The muto-mudcrab looked kinda cute in its own way.

-Ghouls look far more fearsome then before.

It's not being spoonfed at all. Without the ending slides, there is no way to know for sure what'll happen. It's not the same as the sky being blue.

Several doses insta kill you. My bad. Point is, the stuff is clearly lethal and is only killing a few people. If the people believe the water is killing them, they should stop drinking/distributing it.

That would be the end of it, and the consequences would be minor. We see in the cut scene that it is way more dangerous than it is portrayed, as there is no logical way that it's portrayal in BS would create a region-wide graveyard.

That's great, but most people would consider a lack of options a weakness. As you said yourself, the Enclave aren't Eden, and under Autumn they might not even be all that bad. Yet there is no option to even consider them. It to make them consider you. I consider that a weakness. As do most others.

Evidence? The BoS in 3 is exactly like that. They don't bother with Paradise Falls and the like because they are locked in battle with the mutants. They have literally abandoned their main mission for the sake of protecting the people, and despite what you claim, there is zero evidence that Lyons isn't exactly what he presents himself as. His own brothers and sisters seem to think he is, and support or go against it as they will.

Because that was his father' life's work. Because this isn't his fight. Because it's unnecessary and stupid as [censored]. Though admittedly the alternative is way more ridiculous. It's obviously an idiotic white knight hero vs a stupidly evil choice.

Would love to see backpacks as a gear item. Cherry bombs functional. Mutilation of firearms (find a 12ga shotgun, chop the barrel or butt stock). Now I know the game is past the addition of these, or maybe already included. Another cool feature would be if you cripple an enemy's arm they would drop whatever was held in that arm.

Also I've been reading a lot about improvements on FPS inhancements. I agree. If any other outdoorsman or fellow serviceman could agree, first person shooter is about as realistic as you can get. I think the fallout franchise was headed that way a long time ago. But technology wouldn't allow it. And as my playstyle goes, I'm a survivor.

Of the graphics... I liked the dog model, and most of its animations.

I will assume that the trailer is made from game assets, but not that it's indicative of the final texturing. They can always find ways to improve it... But cannot cleanly release a trailer, and renegue on promised attributes, if it becomes impossible to deliver. Look what happened to Witcher 3 (I'm sure they did). W3 was accused of downgrading its graphics from the released trailer.

I thought the color palette seemed almost the result of a survey checklist, as though heeding reports that "78.2% of players were not pleased with the green & gray look of our last game, so we need to add more saturation and greater color variety".
This ignores that the Fallout setting is supposed to be depressing as hell, and that color affects the mood of the player. Overall I thought the post war scenes were still too pastel shaded; the prewar scened looked like the Xcom shooter; but that's not too off, and seems fine to me.

I did like the improved power armor ~if that wasn't just a static prop, and reflects what the PA suits might look like.

It's up to Bethesda to define what Fallout is supposed to be like. The colors in FO3 and subsequently New Vegas were bland, simply put.

They're not adding a happy-go-lucky texture feel to everything, but adding a more cohesive color palette and dynamic lighting/shading is definitely a plus.

The power armored NPCs in the pre-war scenes looked as big, bulky and detailed as the static suit in the garage.

I liked the dog as well, looks like a German Shepherd and not another raggedy looking mutt. I like the new cars, the power armor was decent, and the Ink Spots song feels familiar. Not too big a fan of a voiced character though, and the color had almost a cartoony feel to it.

A shame too; it means that they get to apply the name to something that doesn't deserve it.

True; as they should have been.

That's not what I saw in the trailer; and I don't think it's a plus, I think it's a compromise, and/or player fawning. A tactic for improved sales.

I'd be surprised if there was a voiced main character; I have nothing against having one, but it has to be done well, and within a certain scope that I just don't see them attempting.

____

I did not get the right vibe from the radio announcements... The Government of that world was made painfully clear to be lying and totally manipulative of their population... The radio seemed to be too honest and forthcoming to seem ~correct for the setting. I would have expected the announcer to either be assuring the public that nothing was wrong (just a drill), or be yanked away from the microphone, and replaced by someone who would.

....

....well you better have your buffout and med x. Or perhaps nothing a rifle can't fixed.

I never found any Fallout game, sans NV, to be depressing. All of them had a very "hope for a better future" vibe to them in the end. Even if it was all underlined by a background notion of "war, war never changes" and that it will eventually be for naught, as NV showed.

Even in Fallout 3, arguably the most trashy and depressing setting yet in the series, most people showed an acceptance of their lives, and even show ideals that it wasn't THAT bad. Big town was the only place truly in the [censored]ter.

Not sensitive enough then.

Fallout was very depressing; more so than Fallout 2, more so than FO3. But it was implied, not overt. They lose a lot by their 'Show, not Tell" policy; and their take on the setting is rather skewed from the original.

**'Just right', is where the game is too depressing to play, without black comic relief here and there. That didn't happen in FO3 that I saw. It could happen in FO4, but I don't think they want it to.

Honestly, I don't mind the transition away from a heavily bleak atmosphere. Fallout's about new civilizations appearing and rebuilding from the ashes of an old one. Fallout 3 wasn't a good game to show this considering it was 200 years later and a hellhole. The green and bleak atmosphere reflected that well, but I'd rather see the world moving forward. This game looks like it's in a much more developed region, much like Fallouts 2 and NV, and the atmosphere seems to reflect that.

Things would logically get less depressing after people have started rebuilding, and things like raiders and mutant monsters become less of a threat. I don't see that as anything but a natural result of the passage of time, and the logical results of the efforts of rebuilding.

The game should only be as bleak as the original if it was set in the same time period as the original, which it isn't.

Falllout 1 and 2 depending on the situation had more vibrant colors than Fallout 3 and NV those two had a color filter over everything...and it has been more than 200 years since the war.

Fallout 1 & 2 were limited to 229 colors in the game; this compressed range is to be expected no?

Both New Vegas, and the originals were depicting deserts... That's an awful lot of the same tones ~or it's wrong, I should think.

Now... this is wrong, on so many levels:
http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/fallout.gamepedia.com/thumb/6/6a/Fallout4TrailerAn048.png/1600px-Fallout4TrailerAn048.png

*But we don't know if it's indicative of the retail game. There might be screenspace shaders that change it significantly during play.

Do we know that? (I can agree that things should get better ~in town... But on the whole, the Fallout world should never ~ever fully recover; or even come close.)

Someone spotted a GNR broadcast station or something like that. If it's a free radio network (which plays the kind of music 3 Dog likes), I would think that they would be honest and informative to their audience.

I agree that the world shold never fully recover, but it would get many times less depressing then the original was even before reaching a "fully rebuilt" state.

Also, as I said before(though I am not sure if you were around to see that post), I do recall Bethesda saying once that they dont do prequels. Its always going to be set sometime after the previous game.