[Dalia]

I have a couple questions, will fallout 4 take place back in d.c.? And if it does will the layout of the land change since they purified the water? When I refer to the layout I am saying will the abandoned buildings and streets have vegetation on them? It would be a good change of pace.
Will there be other forms of transportation i.e. cars, horses, or even bikes? Walking gets kinda burdensome if you need to go somewhere you havent discovered yet, especially this far into the story.
And finally, is bathesda going to use the same engine and rank progression in fallout 4 as they did in skyrim? Kinda makes sense. You progress more on how you play. Thanks for reading:-)

No info on anything about Fallout 4 yet. I'd guess the earliest we might get anything is at the end of this year, but everything's still open.

But I do have to say that I hope none of that will happen. I wouldn't want a Fallout 3 2 with (even more) TES mechanics - and I'm generally against the idea of vehicles (for other than fast travel purposes) in the relatively small maps Beth games have and with the teleport fast travel in place. But that's just my opinion.

[Kathryn Medows]

Melee weapon, [block] and tap to the left/right on A/D or the anologue stick?

Rolling.

The ability to lure animals to/away from you with food/smells/etc.

[D IV]

No info on anything about Fallout 4 yet. I'd guess the earliest we might get anything is at the end of this year, but everything's still open.

But I do have to say that I hope none of that will happen. I wouldn't want a Fallout 3 2 with (even more) TES mechanics - and I'm generally against the idea of vehicles (for other than fast travel purposes) in the relatively small maps Beth games have and with the teleport fast travel in place. But that's just my opinion.

[Hot]

How about the ranking progression? And the layout of the land?

[Blaine]

it would be good flying a vertibird but not dunebuggies like on RAGE, i think that was a fail of a game too be honest with you, it would make it too similar and might ruin it. It was better in fallout 3 because there was more wasteland then settlements, that makes it more realistic, they should have more vaults to explore and maybe come and go as you please although that goes against vault overseers points of views

[R.I.p MOmmy]

How about the ranking progression? And the layout of the land?

Especially not the ranking progression.

The layout of the land, as you described it, wouldn't matter if the game didn't take place in D.C.

Something new should be in order. And generally something other than revisiting places already visited.

[James Potter]

What was wrong with the ranking structure in skyrim? And the mapping and graphics of the engine they used?

[Umpyre Records]

What was wrong with the ranking structure in skyrim?

Take a look at http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1362248-skyrim-level-up-system/ (one of many). It contains a bunch of reasonings I share.

[Symone Velez]

I think the setting of Fallout 4 should be in New York City. The twist would be that the actual start of the game would be before the bombs fell. This part would be short and and the actual invasion and bombing would be short as well and would serve as the mandatory intro like Vault 101 in Fallout 3 and Goodsprings in New Vegas. T

[Chantelle Walker]

Yeah, the introduction could be set in pre war times. They could make it a prequel all together...

[Angela]

It would be a good change. And bring back the giant super mutants also.

[Jordan Moreno]

Plus placing the game back in the city will bring that old dark creepy feeling that fallout used to have.

[Racheal Robertson]

Bethesda has already stated a long time ago, back when Fallout 3 was coming out, or already so, that they wouldn't have a game set in the past. All Fallouts from Fallout 3 onward, will take place years later from what the last game before it, was set. Just like Fallout 3 was 2277, and NV was 2281, Fallout 4 will be after 2281.

Also, NYC has been stated before, and there are several of us who disagree that NYC would make a good place for Fallout. That main factor being NYC is so overused, and it's better to have more refreshing and unused places, unlike NYC which seems to be a major setting for a post-apocalyptic story. New York State, would be fine, but Bethesda should always stay away from NYC. Go somewhere that's not always a point for post-apocalyptia, like Buffalo, New York; Rochester, New York; Utica, New York; or anywhere NY, that isn't NYC.

[jason worrell]

Bethesda has already stated a long time ago, back when Fallout 3 was coming out, or already so, that they wouldn't have a game set in the past. All Fallouts from Fallout 3 onward, will take place years later from what the last game before it, was set. Just like Fallout 3 was 2277, and NV was 2281, Fallout 4 will be after 2281.

Also, NYC has been stated before, and there are several of us who disagree that NYC would make a good place for Fallout. That main factor being NYC is so overused, and it's better to have more refreshing and unused places, unlike NYC which seems to be a major setting for a post-apocalyptic story. New York State, would be fine, but Bethesda should always stay away from NYC. Go somewhere that's not always a point for post-apocalyptia, like Buffalo, New York; Rochester, New York; Utica, New York; or anywhere NY, that isn't NYC.

No one advances in the game industry by following the same forumla. The main reason new vegas failed to get the plaudits Fallout 3 received was it didn't have the same "shock" to it. Yes, they made some pretty cool changes but fundamentally it was the same game, like an expansion pack. It would be wise of them in my opinion to consider making a prequel showing major factions were formed considering how many users like myself have never and will likely never play fallout 1 or 2.

That said I don't think you're wrong, they will likely just keep doing what they are doing. But it would be impressive if they did something that surprising, and the last time this series experienced fundamental change it won game of the year by many.

[louise fortin]

It would be a good change. And bring back the giant super mutants also.

Do you even know how supermutants were made?

It wasn't from radiation; they didn't show up until years later.

No one advances in the game industry by following the same forumla. The main reason new vegas failed to get the plaudits Fallout 3 received was it didn't have the same "shock" to it. Yes, they made some pretty cool changes but fundamentally it was the same game, like an expansion pack. It would be wise of them in my opinion to consider making a prequel showing major factions were formed considering how many users like myself have never and will likely never play fallout 1 or 2.

That said I don't think you're wrong, they will likely just keep doing what they are doing. But it would be impressive if they did something that surprising, and the last time this series experienced fundamental change it won game of the year by many.

A series does not maintain its fanbase by changing extremely every two games or so. I personnally dislike the games but Call of Duty wouldn't have maintained the following that it has if it kept changing to extreme degrees every two games.

If you want to know how factions formed read the wiki or play the old ones, don't bother Bethesda to waste their time remaking games because you don't like reading wikis or you don't like turn based gameplay.

And NV was hundreds of steps ahead of F3 in the writing department which was Obsidian's focus, thus making it and absolute success.

[Sasha Brown]

Was talking about the giant mutants that were in fallout 3 man.

[ANaIs GRelot]

Which brings me back to my first statement earlier today.

[Roy Harris]

Was talking about the giant mutants that were in fallout 3 man.

I know but you said if they made if right after the Great War we could bring them back which is wrong.

They didn't emerge from V87 until years later and didnt' grow into behemoths until they reached a very old age.

[Rach B]

I'm not going to say this game needs more Aliens...




But it needs more Aliens.

[Marlo Stanfield]

Do you even know how supermutants were made?

It wasn't from radiation; they didn't show up until years later.



A series does not maintain its fanbase by changing extremely every two games or so. I personnally dislike the games but Call of Duty wouldn't have maintained the following that it has if it kept changing to extreme degrees every two games.

If you want to know how factions formed read the wiki or play the old ones, don't bother Bethesda to waste their time remaking games because you don't like reading wikis or you don't like turn based gameplay.

And NV was hundreds of steps ahead of F3 in the writing department which was Obsidian's focus, thus making it and absolute success.

You could not have picked a worse example in Call of Duty. The original two were considered popular among first-person shooters, then they decided to abandon the WWII setting altogether, move to consoles and go to a modern setting. They literally only kept one character.

I'd say they've done pretty well for themselves.

Moreover, they are going to give us what ever the aggregate of us demands. People didn't like how fundamentally familiar New Vegas was and it showed on the grades despite the overall high quality of the game. You watch, they will make considerable changes, question is what?

[jessica robson]

No one advances in the game industry by following the same forumla. The main reason new vegas failed to get the plaudits Fallout 3 received was it didn't have the same "shock" to it. Yes, they made some pretty cool changes but fundamentally it was the same game, like an expansion pack. It would be wise of them in my opinion to consider making a prequel showing major factions were formed considering how many users like myself have never and will likely never play fallout 1 or 2.

That said I don't think you're wrong, they will likely just keep doing what they are doing. But it would be impressive if they did something that surprising, and the last time this series experienced fundamental change it won game of the year by many.

Like Sebor said, they're not going to remake FO1 & 2, just to show you how the NCR and other factions from those games we later see in New Vegas, grew. As given, Call of Duty hasn't changed to extreme degrees in years, yet it has a magnitude of followers, just waiting to buy up every game that comes out in the series. You say NV was like a "FO3 add-on", yet don't realize how different FO3 and NV are from each other, in every aspect of each game. They might have shared the same engine, but how they played and were done, were very different from one another. The amount of RPG depth put into NV, was a hell of a lot more than FO3, which was really nothing more than a FPS w/minor RPG elements added onto it. A lot of people overlooked that fact (including reviewers), among others, or just didn't care because of one reason or another, mostly because FO3 was their introduction to the series, and didn't care much for what NV added.

What Bethesda can do with FO4, is show us how new factions (created from their own imagination,) grew/grow, and form to be what they will be in later installments.

[Tom Flanagan]

Like Sebor said, they're not going to remake FO1 & 2, just to show you how the NCR and other factions from those games we later see in New Vegas, grew. As given, Call of Duty hasn't changed to extreme degrees in years, yet it has a magnitude of followers, just waiting to buy up every game that comes out in the series. You say NV was like a "FO3 add-on", yet don't realize how different FO3 and NV are from each other, in every aspect of each game. They might have shared the same engine, but how they played and were done, were very different from one another. The amount of RPG depth put into NV, was a hell of a lot more than FO3, which was really nothing more than a FPS w/minor RPG elements added onto it. A lot of people overlooked that fact (including reviewers), among others, or just didn't care because of one reason or another, mostly because FO3 was their introduction to the series, and didn't care much for what NV added.

What Bethesda can do with FO4, is show us how new factions (created from their own imagination,) grew/grow, and form to be what they will be in later installments.

Again, like Sebor, if you're going to make a correction be right about it. I never said remake, I said prequel. I didn't say they should, I said it would be interesting of them to do. If they feel that settings might get repetitive, why would they just cross that opportunity of the list and never explore it? These forums aren't on here to suppress ideas. If people should simply do the reading and never ever explore reinterpretations, remakes or transitions to different mediums we wouldn't have films like The Hunger Games or shows like Game of Thrones. Like i said about Call of Duty, that transition from the formula seemed to work out for them.

Moreover, you're wrong about the reviews. Improvements aren't enough, people want innovation. If you pick up fallout 2 and pick up fallout 3 you know you are looking at two different types of games. So there's a precedence for this. They tried something different, unfortunately the reviewers didn't like it, but it outsold FO3 because it had the momentum of the previous game and it was different. I am simply saying that need to look a new level of differentiating the game in stead of changing the atmosphere (one of solitude to one of power struggle) and radically change how the change the settings. In short, I'm saying that simply changing the location and advancing the time frame a few years is going to get old and I want to see Fallout stick around.

[Samantha Pattison]

Again, like Sebor, if you're going to make a correction be right about it. I never said remake, I said prequel. I didn't say they should, I said it would be interesting of them to do. If they feel that settings might get repetitive, why would they just cross that opportunity of the list and never explore it? These forums aren't on here to suppress ideas. If people should simply do the reading and never ever explore reinterpretations, remakes or transitions to different mediums we wouldn't have films like The Hunger Games or shows like Game of Thrones. Like i said about Call of Duty, that transition from the formula seemed to work out for them.

And like I pointed out, Fallout's formula has already drastically changed from what it was before. FO3 and NV, are completely different from what FO1 & 2, and Tactics, were like, gameplay wise, mechanics, etc. Bethesda has no intention of making prequels, they said it themselves they're only interested in moving forward in time, not backwards. That was when FO3 was coming out/already, and New Vegas wasn't even known about at all by anyone, probably not even Bethesda. If they wanted to make a game set years before 2277, they should have done it with FO3. The East Coast was completely open for them to build on, yet they decided to set it 200 years after the Great War fact, which was a big mistake since we see on the West Coast, 200 years after the Great War, nations are build and communication/trade routes are made. On the East Coast, no such factions exist like NCR or Caesar's Legion, and by the way people acted/talked in FO3, no such factions existed for the 200 years in-between the Great War and FO3.

[victoria gillis]

And like I pointed out, Fallout's formula has already drastically changed from what it was before. FO3 and NV, are completely different from what FO1 & 2, and Tactics, were like, gameplay wise, mechanics, etc. Bethesda has no intention of making prequels, they said it themselves they're only interested in moving forward in time, not backwards. That was when FO3 was coming out/already, and New Vegas wasn't even known about at all by anyone, probably not even Bethesda. If they wanted to make a game set years before 2277, they should have done it with FO3. The East Coast was completely open for them to build on, yet they decided to set it 200 years after the Great War fact, which was a big mistake since we see on the West Coast, 200 years after the Great War, nations are build and communication/trade routes are made. On the East Coast, no such factions exist like NCR or Caesar's Legion, and by the way people acted/talked in FO3, no such factions existed for the 200 years in-between the Great War and FO3.

What I don't understand is, your making your point from the assumption they are going to follow that announcement you refer to as if it were set in stone. They will always have the artistic license but they also have to sell games.

[Andy durkan]

What I don't understand is, your making your point from the assumption they are going to follow that announcement you refer to as if it were set in stone. They will always have the artistic license but they also have to sell games.

They have followed that announcement, there's nothing that says they won't or haven't followed it. You're basing your assumption that they should make a prequel, when they've stated themselves, they're not interested in doing exactly that. FO3 is an example of them following what they said. They could have set it 60 years after the Great War, building new factions for the East Coast that by 2277 were like the NCR and major powers, but they didn't. They set it some years after FO2, progressing in years like they said they would. NV only proves more that they're following what they said, because that's several years after FO3, not a prequel or anything. Fallout 4, will be several years after NV, and FO5 or whatever, will be several years after FO4, and so on.