Fallout 4 Speculation, Suggestions and Ideas #189 : Fallout Series Discussion

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:38 pm

This thread is so that we can keep all the discussion, rumors and speculation 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/1484659-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-188/
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1483938-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-187/
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1482975-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-186/
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1482021-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-185/
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1481257-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-184/
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1480783-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-183/
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1480691-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-182/
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1480439-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-181/
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1480278-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-180/
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1480224-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-179/#entry23174025
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1480198-fallout-4-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-178/

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:45 am

John I thought you of all people would be above such a horribly constructed and tirelessly posted argument.

1. Todd Howard is Correct, It's Fallout and there needs to be nuclear explosion because nuclear explosions are awesome, if you want to argue with that then

you are playing the wrong game.

2. Violence can be hilarious, and as Mr. Howard pointed out can be when done correctly.

My argument against the childish anti Bethesda camp is that there is no more inconsistency in FO3 than any of the other previous titles yet Fallout 3 is held up like a wicker man

and called the bane of all things Fallout. Just like the Morrowind Children they refuse to see that their holy grail's are just as flawed in just as many ways and as

the thing they shout heresy at. In my opinion The first 2 Fallout games were good for creating the universe but failed in following through with making a good game out of that idea.

To me Fallout 3 did make a good game out of the idea created. You don't think that's true it is perfectly alright but to say that it doesn't deserve to be called a Fallout game is just

plain wrong. FO3 has everything a Fallout game should regardless of whether you think it was a good game or not just like the same could be said for the first 2 installments.

As I have said constantly suggestion for the new game should not have bickering about the validity of other games in the franchises it is a suggestion thread meant to give

suggestions for the new title and hold constructive discussion of sed ideas.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:59 am

Funny, you are accusing your opponents of being childish with that kind of immature (to put it VERY mildly), horribly constructed and tirelessly posted arguments.

It is you who are playing wrong game. Or maybe you haven't just paid attention.

"The way the weapons are portrayed in the games is inconsistent; in the classic Fallout games, nuclear weapons are feared, respected, and exceedingly rare (not to mention that arguably the most intelligent being in the Fallout world, the Master, is unwilling to unleash the power of the atom again). In Fallout 3 nuclear weapons are commonplace and devoid of their traits from previous games. You can detonate a city with a nuclear bomb in the first few hours of the game, blow up cars in nuclear explosions and carry a personal tactical nuclear launcher", not to mention the nuke-throwing Liberty Prime".

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:33 am

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:04 am

Indeed; I'd have accepted their Fallout 3 had they but retained the Isometric (but done 3D) view, and turn based combat. :smile:

*That alone would not make it a great RPG, but it would have been a great foundation for a Fallout RPG, and with their rather excellent landscaping, made a decent sequel IMO; though without any real choice & consequence, a rather shallow one IMO.

Kind of like 'my dog used to be a cat', or 'my favorite kind of broccoli is that white kind of broccoli'. It would only be that Fallout was no longer what it was supposed to be. :shrug:

(Being something unrelated, but using the same name... like buying another company's 800 number because it's catchy, an not because you actually want to sell the same product.)

I disagree. A professional can always design to suit, it's only the amateur who is really limited by 'we don't [know how to] do that'. Anyone who played Fallout (more than cursorily) can see the vision and intent behind the series; and barring that, they can find developer quotes that tell the intentions... For instance it's quite commonly known that Tim Cain said,'My idea is to explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun. ”, and it's easy to see that this rather conflicts with 'Violence is ### Funny' as a design guide; that is unless you don't want to see it.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:25 am

Like I said before the first 2 titles were horribly done in their implementation of the fallout world. The idea that nuclear weapons were rare in a land that had been

having an arms race for more than a century is absurd on even the most basic level.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:50 am

I agree with Todd that violence can be hilarious and that Fallout and nuclear explosions are closely rated but fallout doesn't need constant destruction and nukes going off consistently, there's a case to be argued that Fallout doesn't NEED the post-apocalyptic backdrop here's a video i done about it I have others http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gGQDIhUWwQ&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLYNTsruZel3QpgzkmsLmTfu5YG_eNCYA6

As for the violence it can be hilarious but it's seems to be a very large focus to just have [censored] and giggles while playing Fallout for Todd Howard while Tim Cain has a less sophomoric and more sophisticated view again these people are lead designers Todd Howard has a very different vision for Fallout that's not in-tandem with the original vision.

I'm not one of these people that claims Fallout 3 gave there family cancer and is a curse that has been placed on the head of humanity but Fallout 3had a lot of flaws and was a mess thematically and Bethesda should look to improve on that formula by looking at the original Fallout games.

"John I thought you of all people would be above such a horribly constructed and tirelessly posted argument."

I'm not saying Fallout 3 shouldn't be a fallout game etc but there is a certain section of the Fallout fan base that don't give the tiniest consideration to any criticism towards fallout 3 and make out like it's flawless or just go on the defensive and say well such and such wasn't good.Then you get the camp that's the polar opposite and reluctant to give Fallout 3 any praise, I'm in the middle i love Fallout 3 but as a Fallout game it could have been better and Fallout 4 should look to improve the mistakes Fallout 3 made as a Fallout game.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:41 am

@ Eight Shell

If there are tricycles still around, bicycles should still be around. There were a lot more of them made. You don't need rubber to ride a bike. They didn't always have pneumatic tires. Sure, it's more comfortable but not neccessary. If blueprints don't exist no more, (which I find highly unlikely given how common they were), someone could reverse engineer using some old husk of a bike laying on the ground or a tricycle. Anyway I bet there are some pristine bikes in the FO universe. They could be in a museum, with some old ghoul collectors, or in a vault. Why a vault you may ask? For that day when the vault dwellers decide to leave they could send people out on bikes to scout out the area quickly. You can cover a lot more ground than on foot. You can also carry more weight.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:40 pm

"Fallout is merely the consequence to an action"

Very well put and quite a thought provoking video I might add. Though I'm not sure it would be the same game as the others on the premise that the fighting would have to

be scaled down quite a bit which is quite a large part of the franchise as a whole.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:44 am

I have an idea why don't we try moving forward for a change?

Maybe just maybe we can discuss things that haven't happened yet?

You know like FO4 speculation,suggestions & ideas?

A radical concept I know yet perhaps rather then constantly crying about things that have happened therefore out of are control maybe

we should grow up and move on? :confused:

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:19 am

If there was to be vehicles It would be great for nomad-type characters. Living out of your car while you wander the post-nuclear world would be wonderful, since you would have a place to store all of your spare ammo, unique weapons, medical supplies, and crafting materials, without being tied down to one place in the wastes.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:48 am

I personally feel that bikes would fall victim to the same duality that fast travel does. And though it would be quite simple to melt down the rubber from old motorcycles and

tricycles to produce tires for a bike I don't see it being a wide spread thing as you would also need air pumps or canned air to refill a flat or low tire. And as much as you

would like to think schematics are quite common they just aren't, sure you can go to the library of congress or one of several us patent offices now to find it but the fact that

most information went digital before the war makes the ability to find the information far less likely than it is now.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:43 am

The problem with a car or another vehicle of the type is that there wouldn't be enough gas to make it practical. Remember the whole reason the US and China went to war was

over resources, and the scarcity of them at the end of the war was so much that we annexed other nations. Petrol isn't a common thing and as such neither would be a car

or motorcycle, having such would make you a massive target to just about everybody.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:06 pm

Nobody is "crying" about what has happened but rather suggesting that we look to shape the future of Fallout with knowledge from the past.

Also to be fair there is a fair amount of speculation (seriously the survivor2299) and suggestions but the hype for fallout 4 has hit a bit of a lull.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:54 am

Fallout games were bad Fallout games? Talking about "horribly constructed arguments". Almost all nuclear weapons gone to hell along with rest of the world. Good thing that you are able to deduce how pa world would look. What would we have do without our prophet.

Are you suggesting that "a centralized government" was the factor that "literally brought the end of the world"?

You ignored what I wrote about "post-post-apocalyptic" character of Fallout. It was evolving in exactly this direction.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:42 am

The thing about digital systems in the Falloutverse though is that a lot of them are still somewhat operational in the post-war era thanks to the glorious fission battery. In Fallout 3 we see a whole bunch of those computer terminals being repurposed by post-war peoples to serve various functions, I don't think it would be much of a stretch for someone who is scavenging computer systems to be able to download a whole bunch of patent data and trade various parts of it to people who want it.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:03 am

The Highwayman in Fallout 2 ran off of energy weapons ammunition, remember? There was probably still a lot of the old gas-run cars knocking around by the time of the war, but they've all been abandoned since fuel is too precious to use in them. The only thing I could see a problem with is that the cars in Fallout 3 seem to explode at the drop of a hat, so I think some sort of armour system or just a simple retcon for that stuff to not happen anymore would be needed.

» Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:05 am

There were also steam cars before internal combustions cars. The Duchess Gambit is a steamboat in Fallout 3. So a steam car could be possible to have in Fallout 4. Finding one or the blueprints would be very difficult however.