Mods will add it in, and they are likely to be much better than NV's hardcoe mode.

I would like something like iNeed in FO4 (it shows your meters using the traffic light color system).

There wasn't anything bad about hardcoe mode in NV. Problem was that resources were way too abundant in game in general, so you newer were in danger of starving or dehydrating. That took good chunk out of fun for having to eat and drink out of the game. That was caused by general setting, and there was little designers of hardcoe mode could do about it (except making metabolism ridiculously fast). There was not much mods could do about it either.

It wasn't bad, just limited.

Skyrim needs mods allow you to fill up water from lakes and rivers and put it in a waterskin or bottle for later consumption. In NV, you can only drink the water at that moment and you can't fill up a container for later. You can also change various settings for your playstyle as well, like "Should certain food items spoil if not eaten for a certain amount of time?".

Agree about that.

Thing about NV hardcoe mode was that it was sort of bonus. Game was not designed with it in mind. F4 could have being build with resource consumption in mind. Which is something no mod can do. Which is why it is pity designers did not pick it up from NV.

There is certain progress in Fallout games. Take "crafting" for example. At first it was few mods NPCs could make for you (Fallout 2) then it was few player craftable unique weapons using schematics, then it was crafting ammo, food (cooking), drugs, poisons, adding modifications. Now we have the most elaborate crafting so far.

With food and water it's sadly regress, not progress.

Eh. "Start from nothing, and need to scrounge loot for supplies/cash/gear" =/= "survival". Pretty much every RPG I've played has you start off with crap and have to gather loot throughout the game in order to succeed. There's more to being a "survival" game than that.

Flawed logic is flawed, settlement building was a secondary thing they added. Crafting IS an RPG mechanic, thus fits into a RPG game. Survival mechanics have nothing to do with RPGs, and since Fallout has never been a survival game, why would they randomly decide to change it now? when have they EVER hinted or said ANYTHING about ever adding such a system. Fallout is a RPG series, not a survival series.

New vegas was made by a different company, Obsidian, not Bethesda, and their system was not about realsim, it was about making the game harder, it was not a toggle but a part of the diffulculty setting system.

I haven't seen any of that.

(But then I don't have the game. )

What I had read (http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1548982-food-is-useless-without-hunger-system/?p=24497200) was that you can cook animal parts and they are not radioactive when eaten.

____________

**And fallout was never a survival game, in that the character started out with an impregnable fortress, and their mission was to retrieve a controller chip, and return home (to the world). In Fallout 2, the PC is given money and traditional equipment, ~and the same mission; go retrieve the gadget for the leader; come home anytime you like. The object was not survivalism, it was simply not to get mugged.

I suppose it can be seen as survivalism, of the same sort as my taking the bus out to the City Park to scavenge picnic tables and test questionable berries from the bushes.

You could say the same about FPS as you are saying about survival but it didn't stop them from adding it.

except you can actualy, because Bethesda makes First person action RPGs, thus, when using an IP that is all about guns...It only makes sense to make it use FPS things. One of teh biggest complaints about Fallout 3/NV was that the gunplay in both was terrible, because it tried to pretend it was a FPS, when it played only partiall like one. It only makes sense to expand on that.

Once again, Fallout has NEVER been a survival game, ever, Bethesda has NEVER hinted or seemed interested in adding a hunger/survival mechanic to a game, so to expect it in, is absolutely stupid.

A shame too IMO; given the series in question.

LOL i been playing D&D since little and that is not true man, u can easy step out of character and success same it goes for Fallout, i really dont see how ppl get a super crazy idea that Fallout games were hardcoe on rpg.

I usually just pretend that any minimal lost health is hunger or thirst. If it's less that half, or I'm crippled, then I recognize it as injury and use stimpaks.

That doesn't prove that they weren't.

(And I disagree with you about D&D, will you elaborate on your belief?)

_______

The Fallout series didn't bother the player with the mundane minutia; the PC was assumed to eat when they needed to ~and the need wasn't really important.

The game did make a footnote to the player if the PC was in the deep desert without a canteen though.

I don't see why that should suddenly become important in a later game like FO4.

Great, so they can add hunger/thirst as secondary as well since you are fine with any additions as long as they are secondary.

Did you just made up definition of what is and what is not RPG? May I ask you how many RPGs you made?

For the same reason they decided to randomly add all other many features which were not part of original Fallout.

It's not crafting, cooking and settlement management series either. As it is not first person shooter.

...Oh wait, but it is now!

Fallout 3 and 4 was made by a different company too, not Interplay which created Fallout. So what? NV is still part of Fallout series.

Talk about flawed logic...

Aha, ...somebody forgot to remind Obsidian about that since they made it toggle independent on difficulty setting.

Did you ever played NV or are you just inventing things as you go?

Indeed you do, but fresh meat is radioactive, it's cooking which remove the radiation. If it's realistic or not is another question.

Squirrel Soup man!

-Building stuff is not one specific genre, the crafting system has been a staple of RPGs for a LONG TIME now, i mean, you would have to be ignorant to think otherwise.

-the settlement system can actually be somewhat traced back to old school D&D to some extent, where a warrior became a lord of a plot of land and thus had to deal with stuff related to that, so even that has an origin in RPGs. Hunger mechanics, on the other hand do not, they are purelya survival mechanic.

- Black isle no longer exists, the owners of the series is Betehsda, thus they can do whatever tehy want with the franchise. New vegas was made by obsidian, and while technically a main series game, Obsidian does not about reaching the total market, they are a much smaller company because of it, they actually had to kickstart their latest game just to make it. Bethesda is far bigger and tries to reach as many players as possible, thus working on such a mechanic that many, if not most, will ignore is not only pointless, but again, is not something they have ever cared about.

So again, stop acting stupid and realize what an RPG is, and that Bethesda was never going to and will likely not ever, have a hunger system, they clearly do not care about having one, and it being an RPG series, should not be expected to have one, to think otherwise is stupid.

-the settlement system was something that they added because they WANTED TO, they clearly do not want to or ever care to add a hunger system

What you want would be like Asking why the high Fantasy movie you are watching does not have machine guns, missiles, and tanks.

So wait a minute... heating up the food cleanses it of radioactivity now? (I don't think so.)

The question is would they have believed (and assumed) that it would cleanse the food; and I don't think they would have.

*A populace that thinks that radiation would turn men into mutant monsters, is probably more paranoid about that, and would not likely think [I think] that a stove could make radioactive food edible.

So is not hunger and thirst one specific genre.

For some reason it was not part of original Fallout. Again flawed logic. Yours.

So can hunger and thirst. You are inventing your own arbitrary definitions of what is and what is not RPG and pretend that it's somehow accepted one.

Go on and provide all third person definitions of RPG which says survival is not part of genre. Until then, please stop pretending that your personal opinions are credible, established and accepted definitions.

Exactly. For example they can contract Obsidian to develop Fallout NV.

How about that?

Only one acting stupid is you. You must be otherwise you would not claim what Bethesda is or not going to do and what it cares about.

Unless you are spokesperson for Bethesda, which I somehow doubt

Yet that's exactly what it does in Fallout 4. trust me

But then radioactivity also turns people in to ghouls in Fallout, so anything is possible

You mean developers? Somehow I doubt they have. More likely it's just one of the game's simplifications.

QUANTUM HEALS FOR 400 HP

This is not useless

This is usefuls

I do this too for this exact reason.

@OP

I'm finding food to be incredibly useful and I'm also using it more than I ever did in any other FO game. It has several uses:

1) Heals you *duh 8P

2) Provides incredibly helpful buffs and effects. The mutt chops are perhaps my favorite as they heal you and remove rads - love them!

3) Not only do they give you buffs like chems, but they have 0% chance for you to get hooked on them.

4) Because they have weight, I'm compelled to use them often which means walking around "enlightened" more often. Something that I never cared about in passed games. I still don't really care about it in Fo4, but still - that extra point in END, STR, and PER helps.

5) Saves me from using Stimpaks which are somewhat rare in Fo4, but since they weight nothing, I can save them for combat.

The buffs are nice, but really check out Mutt Chops (this is a note to everyone, not the person I quoted).

Then that's their mistake.

Not at all. That's a gross misconception. Fallout's setting was the future as they assumed it would be.

No, the populace in the Fallout setting; it was their fears and misconceptions about atomic energy and egg-head science ~made manifest, that shapes (that is supposed to shape, and have shaped) Fallout's future setting.

Monsters don't happen there ~just because; they happen because it was a point of fear and anxiety.

**Unrelated apparent real-word example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgq2b17QMzE
(but cute none the less.)

The typical arguement in tabletop RPGs (for decades and decades) is "ROLEplaying vs ROLLplaying".

The general stereotypes are:

ROLLplayers focus on the game mechanics, numbers, skills, and dice. They don't play "in character", care more about how you mechanically do something than WHY the character would do that, etc. Min-maxers and powergamers are usually rollplayers.

ROLEplayers care more about acting out their character's role/personality/etc. They'll sabotage the GM's story if it's what the character would do, they'll pick skills not because they're effective but because they fit the character concept, etc. The "real roleplayers" tend to look down on/sneer at the rollplayers, because they're "doing it wrong".

Now, these aren't hard and fast rules (since they're stereotypes). There can be overlap and it can vary along a scale.

And yeah, these arguments have been going on in the tabletop community since at least the 70's.

...personally, in my experience, there are more rollplayers than roleplayers in tabletop. But, then, I hung out with the nerds in highschool and went to an engineering school. So, people more aligned towards numbers than writing/acting/storytelling.

I never paid much attention this dispute; merely assuming that ROLEplaying was trying to play the role without knowing the character (or caring about their shortcomings), while ROLLplaying was intimately knowing the character details (making roleplay possible), but not being interested in the identity or its likely behaviors... Not really caring about the role. (only the roll.)

It's possible to do both, without over favoring either; but RPGs these days seem to assume fantastic narcissism upon the players, and makes it tough to roleplay anything but one's self in a virtual jumpsuit.
(And of course, if they are playing themselves, then any Roll to the contrary of whim, seems insignificant, and/or the game's mistake.)

Where this applies to food is interesting to me. I've read posts that indicate an inability to assume non-witnessed actions; but with such an importance that it's a wonder that the concern is not for the character's bladder, rather than belly.
This point of view implies a personal [in person] view of the PC, rather than as a separate individual with their own past that predates the start of the game.
(I don't see how that's roleplaying; but I don't see it as a problem either ~until it affects system design... and suddenly we all have to deal with assumed events not being assumed anymore. )