Yeah :sadvaultboy:

I mentioned that it should either be in a smaller map (with map nodes) or a DLC.

And we haven't seen Chicqgo in about one hundred years which is a very longtime so almost everything could be different.

Obsidian didn't get their feet wet in Fallout: New Vegas, they got them wet when they created Fallout (when they were Black Isle).

I thought only Faergus(?) was from the FO1 team.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Scott_Everts worked on Fallout 1.

But it was all Tim in the beginning.

(and later on... Leonard Boyarski and Chris Taylor, and others ~some were volunteers at first.)

What about the setting being florida...
the whole state
cities and all of its attractions

Was just in St. Louis yesterday it would be a great backdrop for a fallout game maybe not 4 or 5 but it should still get one.
The Arch, Busch Stadium, the Edward jones Dome, and the Mississippi River also got the Metro Link so your going to have ghouls running around in some of the underground areas and the ginourmous airport something to think about.

Some may be getting a bit too hung-up on direct continuation of precise content of the previous, methinks.

Did Fallout 2 have an ending, yes, any one of four endings (as I seem to remember).

So, which ending should Fallout 3 have continued?

And precisely how does one continue something that has ended ... it's a contradiction. There was indeed an ending in Fallout 2 (even though you could continue playing, doing nothing really).

Sequel continuation. The scenarios and content type of plays though can indeed be continued with all of the essences that the previous Fallouts had, and that is what Fallout 3 did so masterfully, at the same time updated the dated mechanics, dropping the board-game combat, and making the game more fully RPG.

Yes, there will be complaints from those that prefer a mix of role-play and board game play of the early Fallouts, but fallout 3 has evolved into a fully blown Role Playing Game (RPG). Yes, in the Fallout apocalyptic scenarios there is naturally a lot of combat play along with the role play, as it was in the early Fallouts, about half and half at least, and it was easy to seek out more combat situations if you wanted to in those early Fallouts, and similarly in Fallout 3 it is just as easy to do more combat in preference to role-play interactions. Remember though that if you have chosen to do more combat in preference to role-play then it would be wrong to think that it is all about combat when there is an abundance of role-play in Fallout 3 that you could have done, more that there was in the early Fallouts in fact, partly because of the increased amount of content Fallout 3 has but the role-play situations were also vastly increased in size, and no doubt they will be in the next Fallout sequel which will be Fallout 4, and of course it should be 4 not 5. Fallout 3 had all the essences of the early Fallouts, that cannot be denied, apart from the board-game play.

Bethesda has a reputation of improving a previous version, that's what they did to the early Fallouts when the made Fallout 3, and will no doubt do again in the next Fallout, which naturally will be called Fallout 4, simple.

The developer chooses the what ending is to be considered as canon if there are multiple iterations of to choose from, and makes the continuation according to that. There's nothing more to it. The continuation from from Fallout to Fallout 2 was not straightforward "begin where the first ended" - and Fallout had an ending too, yet it the story was continued.

Those endings are not definite storywise, though. The world doesn't cease to exist after the protagonist does his deeds. It's just an event in the region. So there are plenty of possibilities to go with, with filling the blanks in between. Like how Shady Sands turned into NCR, how Arroyo was born, how the Chosen One was the Vault Dwellers grandson. The world continued. There was a straight relation between the stories. And as I said, I don't think the number matter. Fallout 3 could've well been named Fallout: Capital Wasteland, and the effect would've been the same as it is now - and that would've even made a bit more sense as Fo3 was not a continuation of the story of Fallout 2. But this is not really an argument, they call their games as they please - that does not affect the content. At the time when Fo3 was announced, the number did evoke certain expectations, but not so much anymore, though.



Needless to say I disagree with the "improvements" over the originals on most regards, and with the "full blown RPG" -stuff (where does that come from?). We've been over it more than once, so you know my point of view about it -- Beth didn't improve upon, they turned the core of the games inside out and made an apple an orange instead of refining the apple to a better apple, and could've done even that more carefully and faithfully to the predecessors both, gameplaywise, structurally an writingwise, and so on -- an apple-orange juice or a pie, if continuing the food anologies. Fallout 3 had all the potential of the originals, and even more with the technology of today, it's just a shame they didn't use it to refine Fallout, but to refine some of their earlier expertise. Who knows what would've been the result had Beth made a fresh approach to making their games, instead of going on with the concept they have been doing since day one. I do agree with you on one thing, though... The way from Fallout 3 is up, so now's the time for Beth to start improving the franchise.

And, as I've said, I don't really care what they call their next Fallout.

how does improving the engine make it a better rpg

So, sequels with new engines and better graphics now makes the genre of the games?

Bioware devs must be doing it wrong for a long time then :whistling:



lets see

1. DR over DT instead of a hybrid DT/DR
2.Reputation system removed
3.Level cap and skill cap (you could be level 99 and skill at 300 back in the old games)
4.Hybrid Shooter/RPG, but its more of a Shooter with RPG elements, the sub-genre is overlaping the main genre of the game, who is RPG
5.Level Scaling, no matter where you go, you find foes who fit you actual level
6. Inconsistent Lore, 200 years passed, yet its looks like that every happened only in a few years,
7 Weapons and Ammo, it was supposed to be scarce, but its ridicuosly abundant, specially the Energy Weapons

So, how does that Bethesda improved this?

I'm thinking the answers gonna be: "First Person, better graphics, immersion, gordon freeman."

Not arguing here as I agree in general, just giving a viewpoint...

3. I think the Fallout system with levelcap of 21 worked fine for what the game offered (skillcap at 200 and higher costs the higher one gets). The Fallout 3 system, in my opinion, did no wrong in having the cap at 20 and skills go only to 100, but where the ball dropped, was the pace of the leveling and skillprogression -- the gaps between levels in comparison to all the XP you could potentially get (in a relatively low timeframe), the abundance of skillpoints in comparison to how much you needed and how fast you leveled, and the perk-per-level system. Beth said they wanted to make it closer to Fallout 1, and the framework is there (for the most part), yet they lowered the stress of leveling and character progression almost down to the ground and thus made leveling too frequent and quite unrewarding (even before considering that the skills didn't do much anyway).

7. Weapons and ammo weren't all that scarce in the long run in the originals either (they probably should've been a bit mroe, though) - but then again, with the combat system in them, the amounts didn't really matter as you couldn't just hold the trigger down until the boogeyman died, like you can in Fallout 3 regardless of the characters skill.



Half Life is the best RPG since Duke Nukem 3D.

I didn't say "improving the engine" made the game a better RPG.

I said "dropping the board-game combat" made the game a better RPG.

If you say so ... I'm not sure I agree though.

Who said that? "sequels with new engines and better graphics now makes the genre of the games." truehitman2010? (was that your interpretation of what he said)



Anyway, 1 to 7, I see that you were after identically of setup as of the previous. You can have different setups that can work equally well, or even better if the scenario situation is not identical to the previous ... Fallout 3 is not completely identical to the previous and yet Fallout 3 gives a superior RPG, it's all RPG and no board-game and that alone makes it a vastly superior RPG. The rest of the balances of play in Fallout 3 work very well to give a masterpiece of a Fallout game, and Fallout 4 if based on Fallout 3 will give just as excellent a game-play.

Logically the next of the sequels Fallouts 1/2/3 would be called Fallout 4 ... for those that want to play the next sequel, and not a spin-off such as Fallout New Vegas is. Any other name could add confusion.

As for your (4.) "Hybrid Shooter/RPG, but its more of a Shooter with RPG elements" ... Fallout 3 is no different to the proportions of combat/RPG of the early Fallouts though Fallout 3 is much better done and in true role-play style. It needs to be understood that the apocalyptic scenario is one of survival with bad elements roaming about so there is bound to be a lot of combat in the game, there was in the early fallouts so I don't know why you are griping about it being in Fallout 3 as well, but it's a game that can be got to grips with, the early Fallouts were far too easy really, perhaps that might be a reason that some players of the early Fallouts seem to complain a lot.

How does that make a better rpg?

:whistling:

It doesn't.

Though, I believe curtiS has a comprehensive and enlightening answer to the contrary just waiting to be typed.

No.

Rpg, Yes

Superior and all RPG, Completely subjective

I personally found Bioware and Obsidian RPG superior to the Bethesda ones, well, at least, after Oblivion, when it was the first bad RPG ever made by Bethesda IMO

It's not subjective at all.

Board-game play is a lesser role-play and is less true to the role that you are playing. It's as simple as that.

Fallout 3 was far more true to the role that you played.

Fallout 3 some of the awards:-
------------- -----------------
IGN -- Best RPG--Game of the Year 2008
GameSpot -- Best RPG--Best PC Game
Game Critics Awards --Best RPG and Best of Show for E3 2008

PC Gamer gave Fallout 3 2nd place on its '100 Best PC games of all time' list, praising its user-modifications, deep gameplay and overall polish.
------------- -----------------

Fallout 4, would we want anything less, and who better to give that unity of quality than Bethesda.

How is it a lesser role-play?
If anything the older games captured the role you had written far better then the newer one's.
The main thing being SPECIAL.

Fallout 3 ended up with us having to either nerf our character or becomes master of all trades.
So it was not more true to the role I played, if I wanted to be a punk who rolls around with a gun and a knife and get into a heap of trouble I can't do that without being a master in medicine and science.
It messed up every role I played and didn't give me enough options to define what kinda character I had.
It was either good, evil or schizophrenic mad man.

And for the love of all that's Willis would you stop bringing up the awards already?
Use some real arguments to back up how FO3 was better than FO1/2 or FONV in terms of roleplaying.

That's where you're wrong. What you call "boardgame play", as the gameplay of the original Fallouts, is all role since all action is done -- and succeeded and failed -- through the role and the roles abilities, and all decisions are made keeping the role in mind, because otherwise they wouldn't work. That's how roleplaying games work, that's playing the role to the maximum, that's assuming the role of the character. And with an emphasis to the word "game" when linked to the word "roleplaying" in RPG, because you can roleplay in any game in existence, or even without a game, it's all up to your imagination, but the phrase "roleplaying game" implies that there is a role to assume as the point of the game, so the game must provide the role. And if you play through your own abilities what point is there for the role that is offered? There is a difference between a game in which you can roleplay and a game which is about playing a role.

Now that is not to say you can't or should not roleplay as the character, but more that the role, however you choose to develope it, is what determines how the game plays out, and that the game provides this so that the player doesn't have to imagine it.



And Fallout and Fallout 2 are lingering in the top rated RPG's of all time on almost every board still after 14 years. :shrug:



No-one certainly wants less than Fallout 3. I'm pretty sure most everyone, regardless of on which side of the fence they are, wants a better Fallout game. And it really doesn't matter who makes it as long as it delivers -- personally I'd hand it over to Obsidian and give them more time and more free hands, but as I said, it doesn't matter who's in charge as long as it delivers.

Fallout 3, a Superior RPG? :rofl: That's a joke right?

Fallout 3s character options. über God that fights for good. Or an über god that does insain acts like nuking a town and yet forced to be good.

Superior RPG, my ass :down: