This thread is so that we can keep all the discussion in one place.

This topic is for a friendly discussion of ideas and suggestions for Fallout 4. We all have opinions about what the next game should have and should not have. Each of us has the right to express that opinion freely. There are points we agree on and points we do not agree on. This means that people are going to disagree with you on some things. Accept that and move on. No need to beat your point so far into the ground that no one wants to look at it any more.


At moderator discretion, threads about specific and distinct topics as they relate to FO4 and the rest of the Fallout series may be acceptable in the Fallout Series forum. General idea/suggestion topics for a future Fallout game will either be closed, or moved to this one.

This thread should be used to discuss items you'd like to see in a future game, gameplay tweaks, quest ideas, things you hope are not in the next game and so on. If you want to discuss major issues, use a separate topic - such as the discussion about adding multi-player or co-op play, which already has a thread. Please search first to see if there is an active/recent thread on a particular topic.

Something to note. Discussions of Child Killing is not allowed on these boards. Don't even bring it up in this thread. It won't happen in any future game from Bethesda, so there is no reason to even discuss it. If you post about this subject, you may be Warned and or Banned from the boards for doing so.

This is also not a thread to discuss current or past Fallout Games, other than to mention an aspect of the game you want to see included, or not included, in a future Fallout game.

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1478285-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-154/

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1478247-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-153/

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1478141-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-152/

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1477569-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-151/

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1477125-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-150/

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1476033-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-149/
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1474755-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-148/

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1473624-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-147/

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1472500-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-146/
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1471721-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-145/

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1470828-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-144/
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1469577-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-143/

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1468694-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-142/

"IMO, NV is too cluttered and could have used less but dug deeper. To each his own, I guess, but NV could have been the story of the Courier's struggle in that society, instead of using him as as a crutch to tell the story of faction.

Sure, the Courier did this and the Courier did that, but all I could see was "House wins" or "NCR took over" or "Caesar pwns". The Anarchy ending was too lackluster; did ME win, or did the people of NV win?" - K4Anarky

But who is to say the courier would struggle in any certain society?He'd need to have per-determined strengths and weaknesses to struggle or thrive in any circumstance and he'd need to be a fully developed character and that goes against the player agency in the story and makes a far more linear experience in a series largely built on choice and being able to affect said story.

Then what was the point of having factions and their consequences? Beside having pre-made movie slides in the end to tell us what we did and why it kinda sorta matters because... HO! Look at the time... Sorry but the game just ended.

So did we just played through 100 hours so that we can write something shallow on the wikis? So shallow we cannot even see the first month after the endings have happened... Did Camp Forlorn Hopes have a zombie infestation? Did Caesar's cabinet eat each other? Did the NCR put a tax on water price? WHAT HAPPENED!?

Ooh, I think I was the one who kicked off the debate and left. Hrm.

Yeah I have to agree that I really dislike a permanent ending, part of the way I play Bethesda's games is taking time to live in their world, not just play in it. Bethesda makes pretty much the only games that lets you -live- in a world rather than just play it, which does wonder for the kind of RP that keeps these games fresh after hundreds of hours.

There were people that played Fallout 1 through to completion, and when they saw the slides ~and the (sometimes) horrific consequences of their actions ~they played it again to "undo" it and not have it on their conscience.

The end slides showed a time long after you are not permitted to play, but shows what happens because of your PC's actions during the years that they had their adventure.

I disagree; IMO it's better to have the game end while you still want to play ~than to quit playing due to withering boredom of the game you once loved.

For FO4, I would at least hope that they again design it with decent ending ~and [again] save the game-breaking after-end for a DLC.

We play in a story sense to see what the consequences to our choices where and they are depicted by ending slides that offer conclusion at the end of the day, Bethesda tried to make our actions have in-game repercussions and continue past the slides and the story greatly suffered in a game with far less variables than fonv.

Again that's why there is such a dichotomy between the fallout fans you get group A who play for the world and to live in it and want it to never end while you have group B with people often fans of the originals who want a compelling story with a conclusion and to have all story ties come to a conclusion and the ending slides do that.

As stated before, by others, Bethesda does make incredible worlds but their storytelling is shallow and dry. Sure, you can live in the world but because of their lacking character development at time there's nothing really stopping you from just being another generic NPC-type character. Obsidian and Black Isles both have exceptionally detailed and in-depth character developments and storytelling. Where you actually feel like you can attach and relate to your character rather than awe about how good the water looks or how great that tree texture is. The point is, Bethesda can make amazing games... Just maybe not good Fallout games.

Either too many endings or just one short of me becoming Mr. House, not sure. Just kinda wished their be some game transfer, to carry them decisions into another FO. I know that's ME 1-2-3 and DAge but it works , ME2 I went back an played 1 to change things , DA2 I was happy with DA orgins decisions. but game transfer sometimes gives that old game a good replay value.

Not even close.

The only solid piece of story telling that came out of NV was Dead Money, and that story was immensely satisfying.

Oh, and Dead Money was linear AS HELL.

This is so. I've never played any Fallout game where I wanted to live there, or experience the world 'through their eyes'; I play to see them in their wrecked remains of a 50's paradise and see how their attitude and motivations serve them in the situations they find themselves in ~and whether they live past it.

It's disappointing that the recent format change makes anything but FPP simulation play all but impossible ~unlike the rest of the series. What my issue is, is that they could do this and keep their changes. The engine would support it ~ but they choose not to. The Witcher (for instance) had that over-shoulder action mode as a backup catch-all, but also had the regular ISO camera and mouse direction. They ruined the series [IMO] for retaining only the Over-shoulder mode Hack-n-Slash method.

*Recall that the Gamebryo engine has been used for even RTS titles.

A good possibility though might be that FO4 may gain the TPP combat from Skyrim; that would be a welcome improvement over FO3 IMO.

Thats where we kind of have to recognize that old Fallout and new Fallout may as well be completely different games. Bethesda's games are kind of their own genre to me, and Fallout 3 represents something radically different from Fallout 2. It shares a universe and not much else. The thing though, is that I think that Fallout 3 and Fallout in general suits Bethesda more than TES does, and I find that Fallout 3 should, for the better IMO, become the new standard for Fallout.

There's also the whole thing where some people say that their storytelling is bad, which I dont really see. I see it as acceptable, probably average. And thats fine with me because again, the way Fallotu is now that isnt the focus anymore. The world is more important to me than the story surrounding it.

Me neither. I only want to see how my character triumphs in the struggle to survive, and how the world changes to my actions. And when everything is beautifully concluded, my character would walk off into the sunset.

I wouldnt go that far, but I do agree that people seem to put Black Isle and Obsidian on too high of a pedestal when it comes to these matters. Their writing is -better-, sure, but in my opinion not all that much better than what Bethesda does.

I meant in relation to Bethesda but I do have to admit I laughed at the Michael Bay thing

I was much more satisfied with FO3 ,but still enjoyed FONV. I know consoles sales are at least 75% of games now. It would be nice if they would carry the FO4 DLC/ expansions longer (more of them then FO3) while say a FO5? was closer to release where we didn't have such huge gaps (YEARS) between releases.

Keeping a good story alive.

Yeah and that's one way to play it, but ive always found that Bethesdas strength is in creating a world that is, well, "real" enough for lack of a better term that you can play a character that feels like a natural part of that world rather than a sort of hero that exists to experience the world.

Going back to Fallout 4 speculation, seeing some of the more mundane things the PC can do in Skyrim really excites me for what I can do in Fallout. Ive been trying to build a drifter-type character in Fallout New Vegas that has no home, but instead drifts from place to place, wielding only a revolver and trying to earn his keep as he wanders around taking in the sights. If this was Skyrim, I would be able to have him earn a room somewhere by doing some hard labour around town. There would also be a infinite amount of this stuff to do, allowing him to wander around the post-nuclear world with no end to his wanderlust.

What I really liked in some of the earlier Fallout games is joining a caravan, and in Fallout 4 I would love to be able to hire my gun out as part of a radiant quest-type system to escort caravans around the world. That again fits into the idea of fitting into the world in a natural way while still exploring it, which is what I really want from Fallout 4.

I've always really imagined a game following another numerically, as part of the main series, should be closely related to one another as far a gameplay and lore, at least. Not so much as Call of Duty where they loved it so much the first time they made it again... 9 or so times. Fallout has changed and I'm ready to accept it as long as it stays loyal to the originals, Fallout New Vegas, to me, did a wonderful job of that. I understand that the main line Fallout was on hiatus for 10 years (that is, only counting Fallout 1, 2 and 3) and things have changed in gaming but it feels like a disservice to the series to have changed almost everything the way they did.

I always thought there was going to be a bunch of Skyrim DLC, and they did support the game for a long time, just not as long as i would have liked

I have no doubt that F4 will get a whole bunch of DLC and content patches, but hopefully they can draw it out over a longer time period with a lot more content added.

I'm the same ~except that my PC needn't always win. If my diplomat tries reasoning with the supermutants ~because that's what they'd try to do... they might get killed, and that's what fate their instincts led them to.

I can see where your coming from, but generally to me I feel that Fallout 3 and Bethesda's take on Fallout in general is leaps and bounds better than what the originals were. So..uhhh...

Well, it comes down to taste I guess, I would prefer that Fallout 4 remains the way Fallout 3 was, but I can see how some people would dislike that. There's really no arguing this point since its pretty hard to argue away someones taste in something, eh?

Huge gaps are important. FO3 was a pretty substantial game with obviously huge substantial changes from FO2 (duh ). NV was also great, but I don't think we would accept another similar game without feeling like Bethesda is milking the series.

I think FO4 would utilize Skyrim's Creation Engine. Imagine the GECK that uses Creation Engine... Mother of god...

I think we might actually be able to bring dragons into Fallout 4, guys...

Hah, I would love a post-nuclear dragon mod. I always hated using swords and having that thing just fly away when it was tired of getting stabbed. I could throw some magic at it, or pull out a rifle and put some 5.56 in it

If I could Twitter hash tag this post it would definitely get a shiny "#realtalk" haha

I consider their take to be a highly misconstrued one; possibly based on a very cursory glance at the series before adapting it to their TES format.