and then you cant see what quests you doing, what items you have and stuff? and die in 1 hit? go play a firstpersonshooter.

well you guys were more lucky then me i guess. even with the guide it took me 2 hours to find it.

to remove power armor and super mutants would destroy the game! those 2 things have been in every fallout game!

thats one of the things that make this game great.. it encourages scouring the wasteland to find stuff.

They probably should be in, yes. But to much much lesser extent than that in Fallout 3.

And power armor should be a damn power armor, not something that a dog can rip apart with ease.

I would like to see SM's, if implemented, handeled more like in Fallout 2. There they appeared less and had more purpose than just being mindless easy to kill cannon fodder with throat cancer.

I like the fact that certain places were hard to find. It makes exploring more fun. Oasis is an easy place to stumble upon, but not so much to find if you're looking for it. In front of the entrance is a bridge, obviously it's there for a reason, so you cross it, go up the path carved in the rocks and you've found Oasis! You don't NEED a guide, and you don't NEED hints. You would have found it by yourself eventually.

its just that i really have not seen any hints for it. but i guess i didnt looked then. with hints you can find its all ok i guess. in the populated area its ok to have quests without hints but i dont see me looking at every inch on the map just for quests.

but does anybody agree there should be a funny perk or skil? which would help in some cases, and would make the game more funnier but that you can choose it incase you wanna keep it serious.

The only complaint I have with FO3 is that by level 30 your character is literally invincible. This (in my opinion) is mostly due to the fact that every time you gain a level you gain a "perk". Perks are great, but in FO and FO2 you only got one about every 3 or 4 levels or so. I would like to see a return to that system in FO4.
I would also like to see a vastly expanded explorable area. FO3 is (my best guestimate) an area 30 miles x 30 miles. It comes in 5 to 10 Gbytes of info. Next game put it on 2 Blueray disks and expand it to 80 miles x 80 miles. For FO5 put it on an external hard drive of about one Terabyte and make a game world of 100,000 square miles. You can do it; just hire a few thousand more programmers and charge 400 bucks for the game. I'll buy it--I promise.

I don't remember exactly what the map size is for FO3, but I know it's well under 10 miles on a side. Bsoft employed a fair number of fps tricks to create the illusion of a world that's bigger than it is, regarding everything from the field of view angle, the players running speed, subtle fog, and topography that frequently blocks los (which also helps to reduce the onscreen polycount). Furthermore, it was originally designed to be much bigger, but it appears that it was scaled down after the fact to create a denser game world.

I could be wrong, but I seem remember reading an interview where they talked about originally it was planned to be somewhat smaller than the final product; and the map size was expanded to incorporate all the stuff they were trying to cram into it.

Do you really think they can't come up with something else that isn't a giant clock stuck on your arm?

A fully explorable map is only a good idea if Bethesda is willing to do it justice this time around. In other words no landscape compression, and landmarks should actually resemble their real life counterparts. Arlington Cemetery and the Point Lookout Light for example looked nothing like they do in reality. Fallout is in an alternate timeline, but the timeline didn't diverge that early.

The PIPBoy's been pretty much a constant throughout the entire series. I mean, even if you started the next game as a Wastelander, chances are the game would still start you off with one that you'd found during your scavenging or something like that. I've always thought it was a rather creative way of integrating all the menus you need for an RPG into the context of the game, personally. I really couldn't imagine a Fallout game without a PIPBoy, or at least it's equivalent.

Sounds like a certain company's typical pr disinformation. Or in other terms, rebranding the truth. My info came from the pc modding community, not Pete Hines.

You're kidding, right?

Why is that improtant to you? How much fun would it be to walk across DC?

Not much fun, I'd imagine.

well, how do you know what took/is taking/will take place in another dimension?
they could have been destroyed and rebuilt many times over in the course of the aproximate 120 years of divergence between our 1950's and the great war in 2077

i dont no if people said any of this already but here it goes

1 being able 2 join other factions besides Bos
2 become a ghoul by constant exposer 2 radiation (there will b good and bad side 2 this good-u get healed by radiation bad- u get discriminated by normal wastlanders)
3 become a super mutant this could happen through a quest (good-u r extremely strong nd hav a high amount of health bad- most normal people will attack u on sight)
4 a gunsmith skill u use this skill 2 make custom weapons nd add improvements 2 existing weapons
5 b able 2 wear coats over clothes/armor for ex. wear regulater duster over the chinese stealth suit
6 hav all armor hav atleast 2 parts the body and the helmet (as long as it has a helmet otherwise just 1 part)
7 make it harder 2 find anything its so easy 2 find meds nd ammo
8 make all guns useful the chinese pistol nd the 32 pistol were so pointless nd after over a year of playing i hav never used either

5 Things I hope, wish, and request


1. A party system
How about slapping all of the other RPGs out there and delivering a party system with 6+ companions, banter, quest, and decent AI or marginal control over em.

2. Tactical combat
With pre encounter planning, cover fire? Something like Op Flashpoint or FSW
Check out FSW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXzdz-CbOxM&feature=related
Good Banter. Its two teams of 4 so you have party size. Reduce the filler combat and focus more on realistic encounters that can be approached with different tactics.



3. Vehicles

4. Radiant AI in the field and less hostiles, more yeilds, creatures that hunt you, and avoid you when you have numbers or power.


5. Combat options
Tossed Prone. Want to see the camera flip when I flip
Lay prone
Wrestle
Disarm
Non lethal damage
biting
groin shots (at least in melee)
Haymakers
Blocks
Dodges
Mocks

I think I'm kind of with Kjarista with this. To a degree, I think this whole "realism" thing can only go so far. I mean, we're talking about a game after all. The top priority has to be to make it fun. Versimilitude and accuracy is something else - and often at odds with what incorporates good game design. (Not to mention that the majority of the people playing these games aren't going to have a terribly clear picture of the real-life locations to begin with. I've been to DC all of twice in my life - my memories of those trips are fuzzy enough that I honestly couldn't tell you where things were scaled back or changed around in F3.)

There's also the whole resources angle, here. Fallout 3 is the size it was because that's how much stuff they could put into the game in the time that they had. Making it bigger is by default just going to lead to lots of repetition. Given that in any set timeline, you're only going to be able to make a certain amount of unique content - you sort of have to make a game world that's scaled apropriately to what you have in the game. (ie, the only way that Fallout 3 would have been bigger and without any compression would have been to add tons more duplicate objects with nothing to offer - and vast tracts of - gameplay wise - empty landscape to traverse before coming across something interesting. Not to mention decreasing the odds of finding said interesting locations...)

In short - the only way that I can see to get the game world bigger while keeping the entire city intact and at full scale would be shift towards instanced areas (a la Dragon Age, Fallout 1&2, etc,) separated by interfacing with the overworld map. Personally, I don't have a problem with either approach - but at the end of the day you're going to end up with the exact same amount of content.

If it's going to be a fully explorable world, it's going to (by virtue of being a fully-explorable world,) be scaled appropriately to the amount of content in the game. (Small enough to be able to find everything without too much frustration or too much "dead" time spent walking around; and large enough for it to feel like an open area.) If that means a game world that's built to scale with the real world - so much the better. But chances are that to make it a fun game to play, that accuracy is going to have to take a side seat in some cases.

Funny that you should ask that.



Even if Arlington cemetery were by chance destroyed (which is highly unlikely seeing as how not even the nuclear blasts managed to destroy it) the location wouldn't suddenly completely change in geography and morph to the degree it did.



It's not as much the compression as it was the absurd amount of similar looking clutter for the sake of detail, and the implementation of landmarks that annoyed me in Fallout 3. The theme park world of Fallout 3 killed much of the experience for many, not just myself. For some more so actually. The game world felt like small and inane "theme park" for lack of a better title than a large and sensible wasteland.

A lot of people are asking for a lot of changes, but all I want is, more clothing options and customization, and a better skill and SPECIAL system

This is Bethesda's game so if people think its gonna be closer to to fallout 1 and 2, they're wrong. This is going to be the sequel to fallout 3, and I hope it achieves what a sequel is supposed to do, Improve upon the flaws of the 1st one! :vaultboy:

I don't think I'm entirely sure what you're getting at, here.

Specifically, this. What do you mean by "similar-looking clutter?" That they've hand-placed rubble and such from a limited selection of pre-modeled pieces? Or...

And what's the problem you have with the implementation of landmarks? None of this is a direct arguement - I just honestly am not sure what you mean, and need some clarification.

This, I might agree with you on some points. Bethesda in general makes what I tend to think of as "theme parks." But I'm not sure I'm using that term in the same sense that you are. (Or maybe you are, I don't know...)

It struck me at some point during Fallout 3 that essentially what I was doing for a large portion of the game was moving to a (rather wide, admittedly) variety of "fun houses." In that you go into a place, see the sights, have some stuff jump out at you, etc. But you're basically there to see the panorama that's been created. This applies most aptly to most of the dungeons in the game (and before people jump on me about this - they're very good "fun houses," and I rather enjoyed them. It's just how I feel about experiencing them.) But also to most of the towns and quests, ec.

Back to topic - I'm not sure I can picture what you have in mind in terms of wanting more of a "wasteland." It sounds good on paper - but I'd be curious to hear what your idea of that sort of game would look like in terms of gameplay, etc. Because to be honest, I felt pretty good about the scale and size of Fallout 3. It wasn't so small that I felt terribly confined (it was rather more densely-inhabited than most areas in Fallout 1&2, but that can be explained easily enough and wasn't something I had a problem.) Nor was it so large that I ever got bored just walking from place to place.

Frankly, no matter what's settled on for Fallout 4 I'll be happy so long as I never, ever have to (or feel the need for) an auto-walk toggle. If I have a need to set my game on auto-pilot, then I might as well go make a sandwich or something while I'm waiting - and game design that gives me impetus to get up from the computer is never terribly good game design.

I agree with you on the fun houses, thats what they are, Fun!

but I wouldn't mind a small (but noticeable) increase in map size to add to the wasteland setting, an increase in map size is good if they make the "open" world interesting with cool landmarks and such.

I worded that quite poorly I will admit; sorry about that it's been a bad day.

What I meant was the landscape is filled with "points of interest" (church ruins, barn ruins etc) that all look alike, and are really small. They feel like they serve as no more than window dressing. They all tend to look the same; the exact same points of damage even. Not to mention they're smaller than they should be... especially the churches.



Well here's one of the more glaring examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Lookout_Light
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Point_Lookout_Lighthouse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assateague_Light



Yes, that sounds about right.



Less spawns would be a good place to start. How am I supposed to feel like I'm wandering a wasteland if there's rad scorpion, raider and robot spawns every ten feet?

ya, i know its far fetched
though, I cant say that flooding, fires, re-zoning, large amounts of exhumation didnt change things around
:P

To me wasteland is desert...sand.

And just how much of THAT would you like to see? The the little bit in the FO2 special encounters was plenty.

Seems to me that a realistic destroyed city would be miles of rubble. Just how many miles of rubble would be fun? At least in FO3 we had a ruined city setting, some countryside, some building interiors and some vault interiors, and to my mind, all of it was significantly more immersive TO ME than any previous Fallout.

I keep saying it: Overland maps are fione as long as each area is large enough to EXPLORE, and the random ecnounters don't happen on a couple LITTLE generic squares of desert.